|
Re: Last Call Comments on draft-iasa-bcp-04.txt
2005-01-17 07:41:42
At 7:34 PM -0500 1/16/05, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
The following three terms are used in this document, and it is not
clear if there is intended to be any difference between them:
- IASA accounts (or IASA budget)
For "IASA accounts" in most instances it would be more helpful to
call them "IASA Cost Centers" (following ISOC's standard
terminology), as this more clearly distinguishes the accounting and
reporting aspects (which is what they are usually referencing) from
the money/bank account aspect.
The BCP currently states that it is up to ISOC how to organize the
IASA (as a cost center, subsidiary, etc.)... I think that the
document is using the term "accounts" in a generic sense, and that
ISOC could set-up those accounts as cost centers if that is what ISOC
wants to do. ISOC could also set up IASA as a cost center now, and
change the structure later if there is reason to do so (growth of one
or both organizations, etc.).
- IETF accounts (or support of the IETF)
- ISOC standards pillar
Are all three of these things considered equivalent? If not,
how do they differ? In which category would the following
items fall, for example?:
Margaret, good questions. I know you are aware of the differences
but as the BCP doesn't specifically address the last two point
above, I thought it might be helpful to try and define them.
The current BCP defines the following: (Note: I believe this covers
everything, but if I did leave something out, it was simply an
oversight).
IETF / IASA:
- Direct support to the IESG, IAB, IRTF, IETF WG's, NomComm, etc.
(includes all meeting and secretariat expenses, tool development,
IAD, etc.)
- Direct support to the RFC Editor, (IANA), Legal fees (D&O) Insurance
- Discretionary support to the IETF and IAB Chairs
- Staff support (finance, legal, etc.) provided by ISOC or through
consultants in direct support of IETF/IASA.
- All other expenses - rent, capital equipment, etc. in direct
support of IETF/IASA.
And, ISOC's Standards pillar includes
ISOC's Standard Pillar:
- All of the above (assuming we're supporting them today).
- Fundraising and Organization Member support expenses - Direct
staff time, travel, marketing expenses
- ISOC staff involved in supporting IETF, attending IETF meetings,
concalls, etc. (Note: ISOC operates on a cost center model and all
actual staff time and expenses are charged to specific activities)
- A G&A allocation for items such as web support, Board of Trustee
support, depreciation, electricity, office expenses, etc.
As I mentioned in my response to Harald, this does not match his
response (which would place all of these things under IASA). So, I
think we have some work to do to make this a bit clearer.
I think that your response offers a better structure. By housing
IASA, I don't think that ISOC should give up its discretion to fund
other standards pillar activities, and I don't think it makes sense
for the IAD/IAOC to decide which members of the ISOC staff need to
attend IETF meetings, etc. I also think that the structure that you
have proposed supports a better separation between fund raising and
IASA.
As ISOC follows a cost center model, we can be very flexible in our
reporting formats. We can show a P&L and a pro-forma Balance Sheet
for just the Direct IETF/IASA activities, as well as another one
including the appropriate activities from our Standards pillar (or
any combination the IETF finds useful). The specifics of what to
include is something I believe is best left to the IAD and the IAOC
(with community review as the IAOC deems appropriate) as we all move
to the next level of implementation.
This makes sense, and this may be what the BCP is currently
suggesting -- the IAD/IAOC reports on the IASA finances and ISOC
reports on the finances for the full ISOC Standards Pillar. If so,
that makes sense to me, but I think it could be a bit clearer in the
document.
- Support for Non-IETF RFC publication?
(Currently covered by ISOC standards pillar)
and currently covered within the current RFC Editor SOW. If this
changes, so would the discussion re financial support.
Right. And, in the structure that you have described above, ISOC
could choose to fund the RFC Editor's independent publication series
under the ISOC Standards Pillar, even if the IETF did not choose to
fund it under IASA. (I am not saying that we would -- I actually
don't know what we would do in this situation, and I hope it doesn't
arise).
Details (my comments are marked with ">>"):
5. Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the IETF
accounts, they shall be irrevocably allocated to the support of
the IETF.
I am not certain, for instance, whether the above principle
would stop us from using money in "IETF accounts" to pay
for a fund raising drive intended to raise money for
improvements to the IETF infrastructure.
I believe it shouldn't but TBD per the above.
So, if some company gives a donation to "the IETF" what happens?
Does ISOC deduct some sort of fundraising/administrative overhead off
the top and then credit the remainder to the IASA accounts? Or does
ISOC credit the whole amount to the IASA accounts? If ISOC deducts
some overhead first, then I agree that it would be double dipping to
go back to IASA for fund raising money. But, if we credit the whole
amount, who pays for the staff costs, travel, marketing programs
and/or other expenses related to fund raising?
The IAD is responsible for administering the IETF finances, managing
separate financial accounts for the IASA, and establishing and
administering the IASA budget.
This is one place where the difference between "administering the
IETF finances" and "managing separate financial accounts for the
IASA" is unclear to me.
Administering IETF finances = managing the execution of such things
as payments to the RFC Editor, etc. and replace "managing separate
financial accounts" with "managing IASA Cost Centers" and it becomes
more clear.
You are using the plural here ("Cost Centers").. Do you think that
IASA will have more than one? Or that there will be a single IASA
cost center?
2. Designated donations to ISOC (both monetary and in-kind);
I think that this means all ISOC donations that are designated for
the support of IASA? Or to the ISOC standards pillar? Or to "support
of the IETF"? Is there any difference?
I don't think there is a difference, but what about changing it to:
Donations designated in support of the IETF where IETF as defined by
the aggregation of the IETF agreed cost centers. If the IETF is
reporting on it, there's an assumed linkage and IASA is the
administrative support activity not the top-level entity.
Would ISOC still accept donations that are designated to the "ISOC
standards pillar", and would these be handled any differently from
donations designated "in support of the IETF"?
ISOC shall create and maintain appropriate structures and programs to
coordinate donations intended to support the work of the IETF, and
these shall include mechanisms for both in-kind and direct
contributions to the work supported by IASA. Since ISOC will be the
sole entity through whom donations may be made to the work of the
IETF, ISOC shall ensure that those programs are not unduly
restrictive. ISOC shall maintain programs that allow for designated
donations to the IETF.
Is it intended that these funds would be dedicated to the ISOC
standards pillar (as a significant number of the platinum donations
are today)? Or that they would be dedicated to IASA? Or to
"the IETF" in some more general sense?
I believe it should be the IETF per my comment above.
So, where would the money come from to fund the items that you have
listed under the ISOC standards pillar above (the ones that aren't
included in IASA)? Would it come from "IETF" donations? From
non-restricted ISOC funds? Either way, this is probably okay with
me. I just want to make sure that we have a common understanding of
this before we go forward.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|