Re: Scope of labels (Re: Last Call Comments on draft-iasa-bcp-04.txt)

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> --On 15. januar 2005 20:17 -0500 Margaret Wasserman 
> <margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com> 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)
> >         - IETF accounts (or support of the IETF)
> >         - ISOC standards pillar
> >
> >  Are all three of these things considered equivalent?
> I would regard the two first as equvalent, and we should hunt out 
> all occurences of "IETF accounts", and replace them with "IASA 
> accounts".
Yes, I think that this is what is intended in the text, and it would 
be clearer to only use one term.
> I do not regard the terms you have in parentheses as equivalents, 
> however - the IASA budget is a document that is prepared, approved, 
> presented to the community and archived, saying what IASA's plans 
> are for a given year, and "support of the IETF" may be money 
> (accounted for in accounts), in-kind donations (accounted for in 
> accounts) or work (not accounted for).
Okay.

> WRT the ISOC standards pillar, I would say that that is ISOC's 
> business to decide; the IETF wants the work defined as "IASA" done, 
> and it's up to ISOC, not the IETF, whether it has any further use 
> for the name "standards pillar" after establishing IASA as a 
> distinct, accountable-for entity.
Under the ISOC responsibilities section of the document, the current 
BCP states that ISOC should produce public quarterly and annual 
financial statements for the "ISOC standards activity" (presumably 
meaning the ISOC standards pillar?).  I don't have any fundamental 
objection to that, as ISOC already produces public financial reports 
for all of its activities, but the remainder of that paragraph seems 
(to me) to imply that the ISOC standards activity and the IASA are 
one in the same.
> >   If not,
> >  how do they differ?  In which category would the following
> >  items fall, for example?:
> >
> >  - Fund raising that benefits the IETF or related
> >     activities?  (Current part of the ISOC standards
> >     pillar)
> >  - Sending someone to a meeting of another
> >     standards body? (Has been covered by IETF
> >     chairs fund in past)
> >  - Flying ISOC staff to IETF, IAB or IASA meetings?
> >     (Currently covered by ISOC standards pillar)
> I think all of these, and the overhead costs of running an 
> organization at all (BoT and all that) are costs of providing the 
> support of the IETF through ISOC, and therefore they should be 
> accounted for as part of the IASA. But I did not get much response 
> last time the question got asked, so for all I know, I may be alone 
> in that view....
Well, Lynn responded differently, so this is apparently something 
that we need to understand a bit better.
I'll respond to Lynn's note, as well, since I have other comments on her note.

Margaret

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf