Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The IASA model of finances, as presented in the BCP, is this one:
Money comes from a number of places, which can be grouped roughly as:
(snip)
Similarly, the money goes to just a few places
X - Money spent in support of the IETF
Y - Money left by the end of the year (positive balance)
(snip)
By the end of the year, A + B + C + D = X + Y (by the theory of accounts)
At the beginning of the year, we have a budget that estimates each of
(snip)
All this makes sense.
Reserves
--------
Stepping back a bit, I think there are two kinds of reserves we need to
consider:
- The money (let's call this the "backstop") that allow us to operate
for a while if there is an unexpected shortfall of income. The reason
for having that reserve is prudent contingency planning, and the BCP
says that this financial capacity is provided by ISOC, by whatever means
that ISOC wishes to provide it.
- The funds that consist of money earmarked for IETF work, but not yet
spent (let's call this the "balance"). The reason for the existence of
these is a question of fairness and proper accounting, not planning -
when money is given to support the IETF, it needs to be clearly shown
that it is retained for that purpose only.
The balance may form part of the backstop, but not the other way around
- if ISOC provides a reserve out of non-designated money, using the ISOC
line of credit or by other means, that money still isn't designated for
IETF use in the absence of a crisis.
Right.
In the case of a split (should that ever be a reasonable thing to do),
it's reasonably clear that the balance stays with the IETF-controlled
entity, while what to do about the "backstop" reserve will depend on a
number of factors, and certainly we can't describe all of them in this
document.
If the document already says that the backstop is provided
by the ISOC, is there any case where it would NOT be left
also at the ISOC in case of a split? This seems simple to
me but maybe I missed something...
Separable income
----------------
It's a relatively consistent message from the IETF community throughout
the IASA discussions that "if people want to give money to support the
IETF, then they should be able to do so - and see that this happens".
There have been no requests for designating the funds more specifically
than that.
This is a transparency issue, not a way to increase or decrease overall
numbers. We have had the request from the community, and we need to
answer it.
I agree.
Where "cost of fundraising" is concerned - I think it's simplest in
terms of showing people where the money goes if the cost of fundraising
for the IETF is charged to the IASA, and a portion of the cost of
fundraising for ISOC in general is charged to the IASA. But the
important factor, the one that should get into the BCP, is that the cost
of fundraising is reported.
Yes.
Budgeting process
-----------------
I thnk we must allow ourselves to "learn to walk" here - the IASA and
the rest of ISOC need to be allowed to work out these procedures
together. The absolute requirement should be on the openness of the
process - that the IETF community is able to see and understand who
makes the decisions, at what time, and who's responsible for approving
or changing them.
In that spirit, I think the best way forward on the tickets that deal
with this process may be to say less, not more - give the freedom to
work this out in a way that works in practice.
I agree.
Specific suggestion for text changes
====================================
Reserves
--------
Section 2.2 bullet 7, current:
8. The IASA shall establish a target for a reserve fund to cover
normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with
prudent planning, and ISOC shall work with the IASA to build up
and maintain the reserve.
Under the principle of "state principles, not mechanisms", change to:
8. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient
reserves exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of
unexpected events such as income shortfalls.
Ok.
All other details should be in section 5.6.
In section 5.6, change:
Rather than having the IASA attempt to build that reserve in its
separate accounts, the IASA looks to ISOC to build and provide that
operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems
appropriate: line of credit, financial reserves, meeting cancellation
insurance, and so forth. Such reserves do not appear
instantaneously; the goal is to reach this level of reserves within 3
years after the creation of the IASA. Such funds shall be held in
reserve for use by IASA for use in the event of IETF meeting
cancellation or other unexpected fiscal emergencies. These reserves
shall only be spent on IETF support functions.
to:
The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that
operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems
appropriate: line of credit, financial reserves, meeting cancellation
insurance, and so forth. Long term, financial reserves are preferred;
it should be a goal for ISOC to reach this level of reserves within 3
years after the creation of the IASA.
If the IASA account accumulates a surplus, ISOC may count that as
part of the reserve.
Ok.
IASA accounts
-------------
In section 7 (Removability), change:
Any accrued funds, any IETF-specific intellectual property rights,
and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the
new entity.
to
Any IASA account balance, any IETF-specific intellectual
property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also
transition to the new entity. Other terms of removal shall be
negotiated between the non-ISOC members of the IAOC and ISOC.
Ok.
--Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf