In #787, Margaret raised a couple of terminology questions related to the
terms:
- IASA Accounts
- IETF accounts
- ISOC Standards pillar
In discussion, it seems clear that "IETF accounts" is a mistake, and should
be changed to "IASA accounts" wherever it occurs.
"IASA accounts" should probably be changed to "IASA general ledger
accounts" - to have a recognizable term from bookkeeping instead of the
rather vague term "accounts".
I think both of those are "minor edits".
"ISOC Standards Pillar" is a different issue.
The BCP talks about how the IETF wants the IASA organized as part of ISOC,
and tries to keep an exclusive focus on that. It's not a reasonable part of
this BCP to say whether or not ISOC can have other activities that have
something to do with standards.
In fact, there is another ISOC activity that has to do with standards that
the BCP tries to keep at some distance from IASA: Fundraising.
Viz:
5.3 Designated Donations, Monetary and In-Kind
Donations are an essential component of funding. The IASA undertakes
no direct fund-raising activities. This establishes a practice of
separating IETF administrative and standards activities from
fund-raising activities, and helps ensure that no undue influence may
be ascribed to those from whom funds are raised.
So what I said before is clearly wrong - fundraising is NOT part of IASA
activities. And I think it makes sense for ISOC to operate these activities
as part of its "standards pillar". If so, the standards pillar and IASA are
different entities - if ISOC chooses to call IASA part of the standards
pillar, that's ISOC's choice, and should not be described in this BCP.
But the "transparency" section of section 7 could probably use some
wordsmithing. It currently says:
Transparency: The IETF community shall have complete visibility into
the financial and legal structure of the ISOC standards activity.
In particular, a detailed budget for the entire standards
activity, quarterly financial reports, and audited annual
financial reports shall all be available to the IETF community.
In addition, key contract material and MOUs shall also be publicly
available. The IAD and IAOC are responsible for providing regular
overviews of the state of the IASA to the IETF community.
I think the last sentence is not part of "ISOC's responsibilities" and
should be deleted. And under the comments above, I think that the
"transparency" requirement applies to the parts of ISOC that relate to the
standards support - this isn't really a problem now, since I believe that
all of ISOC satisfies the requirements, but it's not the IETF's business to
place requirements on how ISOC runs its education business.... so, a
suggestion:
Transparency: The IETF community shall have complete visibility into
the financial and legal structure of the ISOC activities that
are related to, but not part of, the IASA standards support activity.
In particular, a detailed budget for the entire related ISOC
activity, quarterly financial reports, and audited annual
financial reports shall all be available to the IETF community.
In addition, key contract material and MOUs shall also be publicly
available, subject to any reasonable confidentiality obligations
approved by the IAD.
(The last edit is from a comment from the IETF lawyer - we've gotten a
review from him, but I need some points clarified. Just convenient to get
all the edits to this paragraph on one thread. His comment was:
7 (Transparency): While I understand the desire for transparency, there
may be some contracts that contain items that are justifiably
treated as confidential (such as individual performance rewards,
terms of settlement of litigation). To address this point, I might add
the following words at the end of the penultimate sentence:
", subject to any reasonable confidentiality obligations approved
by the IAD."
Seems to make sense.)
Makes sense?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf