-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 14:26
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Discussion: #786 Section 2.2, 3.1 and 6: Inconsistent
description of the budget process
[I'm trying to get closure on all the tickets, as usual....
not in priority
order....]
Margaret commented:
There are three different descriptions of the IASA budget
process (one
principle and two later sections), and they don't seem to
agree with each
other about what role the ISOC BoT plays in the budget
process and/or
who approves the IASA budget.
I actually think the three descriptions aren't inconsistent,
because they
describe different parts of the process..... but agree that
the text is not
crystal clear.....
Under "principles":
3. The IAD and IAOC, in cooperation with the ISOC President/CEO and
staff, shall develop an annual budget for the IASA. The budget
must clearly identify all expected direct and indirect
expenditures related to the IASA. ISOC, through its normal
procedures, shall evaluate and adopt the IASA budget as part of
ISOC's own budget process and commit to ensuring funds to support
the approved budget.
This paragraph in the principles section says "ISOC,
through its normal
procedures, shall evaluate and adopt the ISOC budget". I
think that we
have a general understanding that the ISOC BoT (as part of
their fiduciary
responsibilities) will need to fully understand and _approve_ the
entire ISOC budget (including the IASA portions). Although this
principle mentions an "approved budget", there is no indication of
who approves it until much later in the document and the later
two references are not equivalent (see below).
I think the principle here is relatively clear:
- IAOC must agree to it
- ISOC must agree to it
Given the responsibilities I see assigned to the two bodies,
I read this as:
- IAOC must agree that the budget fulfils the IETF
requirements for the year
- ISOC must agree that the budget is sound from a financial viewpoint
(reasonable estimates of income and expenses, and reasonable
bottom line)
I think it is reasonable to change "evaluate and adopt" to
"evaluate and
approve".
From section 3.1, "IAD responsibilities":
The IAD prepares an annual budget, which is subject to review and
approval by the IAOC. The IAD is responsible for presenting this
budget to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as part of ISOC's annual
financial planning process.
(inserted break for disposition reasons)
The IAOC is responsible for ensuring the
budget's suitability for meeting the IETF community's
administrative
needs, but the IAOC does not bear fiduciary responsibility
for ISOC.
The ISOC Board of Trustees therefore needs to review and understand
the budget and planned activity in enough detail to carry out their
fiduciary responsibility properly. The IASA publishes its complete
budget to the IETF community each year.
Following up on my comment above... This section indicates that
the IAOC approves the budget, but it doesn't mention ISOC BoT
approval, just that the ISOC Board would "review and understand"
the IASA budget.
I don't think this is exactly right - the IAOC reviews and
approves the
budget proposal that the IAD prepares, and in the process of
adapting the
budget to ISOC's overall budget, it will continue to review
and approve the
changed version - it "is responsible", after all.
I think this section is (properly) focused on what the IAD
does, so it
shouldn't be the place where we say what the ISOC BoT does.
In section 6. IASA budget process, we have:
September 1: The ISOC Board of Trustees approves the
budget proposal
provisionally. During the next 2 months, the budget may be
revised to be integrated in ISOC's overall budgeting process.
Here it does indicate that the ISOC BoT will need to approve the
IASA budget, and that the budget presented by the IAOC/IAD may
be revised to fit into ISOC's overall budget. I think that this
should be reflected in the sections I've noted above, or you
should include less detail above and reference this section
instead.
And also:
November 1: Final budget to the ISOC Board for approval.
I think this is clear.
I think most of the apparent inconsistency here can be removed by
rephrasing the text from section 2.2 to be clear that it's
describing the
IAD's responsibilites, for example by changing:
The IAOC is responsible for ensuring the
budget's suitability for meeting the IETF community's
administrative
needs, but the IAOC does not bear fiduciary
responsibility for ISOC.
The ISOC Board of Trustees therefore needs to review and
understand
the budget and planned activity in enough detail to carry
out their
fiduciary responsibility properly. The IASA publishes its complete
budget to the IETF community each year.
into:
As described elsewhere in this document, the IAOC is
responsible for
ensuring the budget's suitability for meeting the IETF community's
administrative needs, but the IAOC does not bear fiduciary
responsibility
for ISOC. The ISOC Board of Trustees therefore needs to review and
understand the budget and planned activity in enough
detail to carry out
their fiduciary responsibility properly.
The IAD is responsible for managing this process of review
and approval.
The IAD sees to it that the IASA publishes its complete approved
budget to the IETF community each year.
(Also added "approved" to the last line - while I don't see
anything wrong
with circulating preliminary budget proposals if appropriate,
I think it's
the approved budget that is the critical thing to have published.)
Makes sense - as a "sharpening" of the description, not intended as a
change?
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf