IETF Nominations Committee Chair
IETF community, One of the roles you entrusted to the Internet Society (ISOC) President CEO, to be fulfilled through consultation with the IETF community, is the appointment of the IETF Nominations Committee chair. It gives me great pleasure to announce that Allison Mankin has agreed to serve as the 2013 - 2014 IETF Nominations Committee chair. Allison served a total 10 years as a TSV AD, most recently 2000-2006. She currently serves on the Transport Directorate and is the liaison to ISO JTC1/SC6. Allison has co-chaired several Working Groups including RMT and Geopriv, and going back even further she co-directed the IPng Selection process. The NomComm process is central to the IETF's success, and it is important that it have robust support. A Call for Nominations for this committee will be sent to the IETF Announcement list; and a list of the IESG, IAB and IAOC/IETF Trust seats to be filled will be published shortly. Please give serious consideration to volunteering for the Nominations Committee as well as to possible candidates for the open positions. In the interim, feel free to make your suggestions known to Allison, who will share them with the committee once it is seated. Allison can be reached at: Allison Mankin aman...@verisign.com. Thank you in advance for your support and a sincere thank you to Allison for agreeing to take on this very significant responsibility. Regards, Lynn St. Amour President CEO, Internet Society (ISOC)
Re: Recall Petition Submission
Olafur, this is to acknowledge receipt of your petition. I also inform the IETF community that I will appoint a Recall Committee Chair shortly. Regards, Lynn St.Amour Internet Society President CEO On Nov 6, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: Lynn, As one of the original signers has been challenged to be NomCom Eligible I put forward two more signers Wes Hardaker wjh...@hardakers.net Sparta Joao Luis Silva Damas, j...@isc.org ISC At this time please do not send me any more signatures as each person that indicates that they support the recall decreases the pool of candidates to sit on the recall committee. thanks Olafur On 05/11/2012 15:15, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: Lynn St. Amour ISOC president, In accordance with the rules in RFC 3777 Section 7, I request that you start recall proceedings against Mr. Marshall Eubanks as member of the IAOC as well as IETF Trustee, due to his total disappearance from the IAOC and IETF Trust for over 3 months, and either inability or refusal to resign. Evidence to this effect was presented by Bob Hinden [1], as well as further evidence that the IETF Trust ousted Mr. Eubanks as chair of the IETF Trust[2] , due to his prolonged absence in that body as well . I as an IETF member in good standing (having attended over 50 meetings since 1987, including 9 of the last 10 meetings), regrettably request that you start the recall procedure. Below are listed statements of support for this recall petition from more than 20 other NomCom eligible IETF participants. The IETF participants below all meet the NomCom criteria as well as the diversity of organizations set forth in RFC3777, furthermore none is a current member of IETF/IAB/IRTF/IAOC/ISOC board. Thanks Olafur Gudmundsson [1] https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=934k2=11277tid=1351092666 [2] https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=933k2=65510tid=1351272565 Signatories: Olafur Gudmundsson o...@ogud.com Shinkuro Joel Jaeggeli joe...@bogus.comZynga inc. Mike StJohns mstjohns@ comcast.net ninethpermutation Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net Google Margaret Wasserman margaret...@gmail.com Painless Security, LLC Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl NlNetLabs Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com No Mountain Software Fred Baker f...@cisco.com Cisco Jaap Akkerhuis j...@nlnetlabs.nl NlNetLabs James Polk jmp...@cisco.com Cisco Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu Painless Security, LLC. Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com Dyn Inc. Stephen Hanna sha...@juniper.net Jupiter Henk Uijterwaal henk.uijerw...@gmail.com Netherlands Forensics Institute Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.orgVPNC John Klensin john-i...@jck.com Self Mehmet Ersue mehmet.e...@nsn.com Nokia Siemens Networks Tobias Gondrom tobias.gond...@gondrom.org Thames Stanley Yiu Lee yiu_...@cable.comcast.com Comcast Tero Kivinen kivi...@iki.fi AuthenTec Oy
IETF Nominations Committee Chair - 2012 - 2013
To the IETF community, One of the roles you entrusted to the Internet Society (ISOC) President CEO is to appoint the IETF Nominations Committee chair. This is done through consultation with the IETF community. It gives me great pleasure to announce that Matt Lepinski has agreed to serve as the 2012 - 2013 IETF Nominations Committee chair. A Call for Nominations for this committee will be sent to the IETF Announcement list; and a list of the IESG, IAB and IAOC/IETF Trust seats to be filled will be published shortly. Please give serious consideration to volunteering for the Nominations Committee as well as to possible candidates for the open positions. The NomComm process is central to the IETF's success, and it is important that it have the support of the IETF community. In the interim, feel free to make your suggestions known to Matt, who will share them with the committee once it is seated. Matt can be reached at: Matthew Lepinski mlepinski.i...@gmail.com Thank you in advance for your support and a sincere thank you to Matt for agreeing to take on this very significant responsibility. Regards, Lynn St. Amour President CEO Internet Society (ISOC)
IETF Nomination Committee Chair - 2010 - 2011
To the IETF community, One of the roles of the Internet Society (ISOC) President is to appoint the IETF Nominations Committee chair. This is done through consultation with members of the IETF community. It gives me great pleasure to announce that Thomas Walsh has agreed to serve as the 2010 - 2011 IETF Nominations Committee chair. A Call for Nominations for this committee will be sent shortly to the IETF Announcement list. The NomCom process is an important undertaking for the IETF, so please consider volunteering for the Committee. In addition, a list of the open IESG, IAB, and IAOC seats will be published and you are also asked to give serious consideration as to possible candidates for these positions. In the interim, feel free to make your suggestions known to Tom, who will share them with the committee when it is seated. Thank you in advance for your support and a sincere thank you to Tom for agreeing to take on this responsibility. The NomCom process is vital to the IETF's success, and it is important that it have broad participation and the support of the IETF community, so please consider participating. Tom can be reached at twa...@juniper.net. Regards, Lynn St. Amour President CEO Internet Society (ISOC) ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Fwd: IETF Nomination Committee Chair - 2009 - 2010
To the IETF community, One of the roles of the Internet Society (ISOC) President is to appoint the IETF Nominations Committee chair. This is done through consultation with members of the IETF community. It gives me great pleasure to announce that Mary Barnes has agreed to serve as the 2009 - 2010 IETF Nominations Committee chair. Mary can be reached at mary.bar...@nortel.com A Call for Nominations for this committee will be sent shortly to the IETF Announcement list; and a list of the IESG, IAB and IAOC seats to be filled will also be published. Please give serious consideration to volunteering for the Nominations Committee as well as to possible candidates for the open positions. In the interim, feel free to make your suggestions known to Mary, who will share them with the committee when it is seated. Thank you in advance for your support and a sincere thank you to Mary for agreeing to take on this responsibility. The NomCom process is an important undertaking for the IETF, and it is important that it have the support of the IETF community. Regards, Lynn St. Amour President CEO Internet Society (ISOC) ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
IETF Nomination Committee Chair - 2008 - 2009
One of the roles of the Internet Society (ISOC) President is to appoint the IETF Nominations Committee chair. This is done through consultation with members of the IETF community. It gives me great pleasure to announce that Joel Halpern has agreed to serve as the 2008 IETF Nominations Committee chair. Joel can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]. A Call for Nominations for this committee will be sent shortly to the IETF Announcement list; and a list of the IESG, IAB and IAOC seats to be filled will also be published. Please give serious consideration to volunteering for the Nominations Committee as well as to possible candidates for the open positions. In the interim, feel free to make your suggestions known to Joel, who will share them with the committee when it is seated. Thank you in advance for your support and a sincere thank you to Joel for agreeing to take on this responsibility. The NomCom process is an important undertaking for the IETF, and it is important that it have the support of the IETF community. Regards, Lynn St. Amour President CEO Internet Society (ISOC) ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
IETF Nomcom Appointment - 2007-2008
One of the roles of the Internet Society (ISOC) President is to appoint the IETF Nominations Committee chair. This is done through consultation with members of the IETF community. It gives me great pleasure to announce that Lakshminath Dondeti has agreed to serve as the 2007 IETF Nominations Committee chair. Lakshminath can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]. A Call for Nominations for this committee will be sent shortly to the IETF Announcement list; and a list of the IESG, IAB and IAOC seats to be filled will also be published. Please give serious consideration to possible candidates for these posts. In the interim, please make your suggestions known to Lakshminath, who will share them with the committee when seated. The Nomcom process is an ambitious undertaking and it is important that the entire IETF community assist as much as possible. Thank you in advance for your support and a sincere thank you to Lakshminath for agreeing to take on this important responsibility. Lynn St. Amour President CEO The Internet Society ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Re: Controlled vs Managed (Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP)
Leslie, this works for ISOC. Lynn At 11:15 AM -0500 2/11/05, Leslie Daigle wrote: That makes the entire abstract: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), and ISOC in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IAOC. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for ISOC pre-indication of consent: BCP-06
Per Harald's request, ISOC's legal counsel reviewed the latest version of the IASA BCP and suggested a number of minor changes. These changes are not intended to be substantive, but rather to accommodate legalese or to improve clarity (in a legal sense). The changes have been reviewed by and are supported by the ISOC Board and they have also been reviewed with Harald. To help with context and therefore speed review, the changes are in a word document and the comments are marked using the track changes functionality. The document can be found at: http://www.isoc.org/standards/IETF-IASA-BCP-v6.doc Regards, Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Resolution? #787 terminology and issue 794 - naming of accou nts
At 1:25 PM +0100 1/26/05, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Having seen some more reactions... I think we can solve the general Ledger Accounts issue with a very simple addition as follows: section title=Cost Center Accounting anchor=cc-accounting t As discussed with ISOC, funds managed by IASA shall be accounted for in a separate set of general ledger accounts within the Cost Center IASA. In the remainder of this document, these general ledger accounts are termed IASA accounts. A periodic summary of the IASA accounts shall be reported in the form of standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of the IASA cost center. /t Bert, one nit -- the last sentence should be changed as follows: s/and liabilities of the IASA cost center./and liabilities of IASA./ Cost center terminology refers to the PL but as we're including assets and liabilities it doesn't really belong here. Thanks, Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC Standards Pillar
Comments below. Thanks, Lynn At 6:03 PM +0100 1/20/05, Tom Petch wrote: Inline, Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip 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. general ledger is indeed a recognizable term from bookkeeping but it is not the one I would want to see. Accountancy (as taught to me) divides up the ledger into accounts, and yes, acccounts is also a recognizable term. There still seems to be some confusion over terms: Per ISOC's Director of Finance - Lynn DuVal and following GAAP practices: an organization keeps several sets of LEDGERS (sometimes called books) and at year end the balances in the LEDGERS get rolled up into the GENERAL LEDGER. The figures in the GENERAL LEDGER are used to prepare the balance sheet and profit and loss statements (and will be used to prepare the financial statements for IASA). For completeness - during audits, the auditors sample accounting transactions during the year and tie them to the GENERAL LEDGER accounts. ISOC's preference is that we stay with the term: General Ledger Accounts. Not only is this most appropriate, but it provides a helpful distinction. The ledger is typically divided up into (traditionally physical separate books) - purchases/creditors ledger - sales/debtors ledger - general/impersonal ledger - private ledger so seeing only the general ledger gives me an incomplete, perhaps misleading view of the financial state of an organisation. In fact, I would want to see the private ledger first since it contains profit and loss, trading, drawings etc. ISOC does not run private ledgers - at all. More generally, I would want to see the IASA accounts (an accountancy technical term) in the ledger (another accountancy technical term). Or do these terms change meaning as they go west across the Atlantic? snip or perhaps they change meaning when technical (terms) meets accountancy? grin I'll address Margaret's comments separately, as while I understand and agree with her position, I think it's appropriate to provide a bit more specificity in the BCP if only to minimize surprises downstream. Regards, Lynn St.Amour ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC Standards Pillar
Margaret, I agree with your point below but I do feel it is helpful to state what ISOC's intended implementation is: a Cost Center within ISOC. This should not override the section (principle) you quote below. Perhaps we can add language at the beginning of this section to clarify all this (or move the paragraph you quote from section 7 to this section). We might also add some of the other language proposed (see immed. below) so that the overall intent is clear rather than focusing on the less important detail. ...periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the form of standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of that cost center. Regards, Lynn At 9:20 AM -0500 1/21/05, Margaret Wasserman wrote: snip There is a section of the BCP that says: Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a department, or a formal subsidiary) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC. It seems inconsistent with this section to mandate elsewhere that the IASA will be organized as a cost center, that we will use cost center accounting, that the financial reports will include a PL for the cost center, that we will publish the general ledger accounts, etc. These are details that, IMO, the IAOC and ISOC should work out (and change as needed to meet the needs of IASA and the IETF community) between themselves. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FYI: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-04.txt (fwd)
At 8:16 AM +0100 1/17/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Thanks for the comments, Lynn! --On søndag, januar 16, 2005 18:03:35 -0500 Lynn St.Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- In 2.2 principle 8 - note: this is not a critical change, but it may be helpful to more accurately reference later text in the document. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient s/reserves/reserves or other mechanisms/ Question on language: in this case (both here and in the title of 5.6), the doc tries to use reserves to mean money available if needed, and provide reserve as have money in the bank or other means of coming up with money if needed. Is it better in your opinion to use reserve or other mechanism when referring to having money available? I think we're in sync on what its meaning needs to be, and working on how to express it. per another exchange with Bert: bwijnen I think current text is fine. In the principles it just says reserves and so I do not read that as meaning money explicitly. That detail comes later. bwijnen So, I can live with current text per Bert's note... exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of unexpected events such as income shortfalls. -- In 5.6 Operating Reserve As an initial guideline and in normal operating circumstances, the IASA should have an operating reserve for its activities sufficient to cover 6-months of non-meeting operational expenses, plus twice the recent average for meeting contract guarantees. However, the IASA shall establish a target for a reserve fund to cover normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent planning. This doesn't seem to parse clearly - are you suggesting that the targeted reserve fund will be different from the initial guideline as described in the first sentence (or maybe it's a timeframe difference?)? If you want to leave it up to IASA (IAOC?), why not say so directly, perhaps referencing the under normal operating circumstances etc. etc. The intent was to make it clear that the IASA will make a decision on the needed reserves for any given year (I assume that the IAD will propose something after due consultation and IAOC will approve it, but writing that here is clearly overkill), and that the IETF community would give a little guidance (six months seems OK) and then let them decide. We can imagine all sorts of circumstances where reserves would depart from norm (after one meeting is cancelled because of a volcano, reserves are lower than usual; after a gift of 100M dollars from a retired dot-com magnate, the reserves are higher) Suggestion for how to make this place authority + non-binding guidance clearer? OK, thanks much Harald for the clarity. How about moving: place authority + non-binding guidance to place authority + jointly developed guidance? : If you agree I've suggested some text below (changes in CAPS). As an initial guideline and in normal operating circumstances, the IASA should have an operating reserve for its activities sufficient to cover 6-months of non-meeting operational expenses, plus twice the recent average for meeting contract guarantees. However, the IASA WORKING WITH ISOC shall establish ANNUAL TARGETS for a reserve fund to cover normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent planning. Regards, Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Naming accounts (Re: Last Call Comments on draft-iasa-bcp-04.txt)
At 1:57 PM +0100 1/17/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The mind-picture I think we want to establish through using accounts is rows of numbers that can be added up to get totals - we want to know what it's costing, and where the money goes. I'm worried we're getting too detailed but in the interest of clarity... rows of numbers that can be added up to get totals are general ledger accounts. The RFC Editor payments are in one general ledger account, the discretionary IETF/IAB Chair funds are in another, IETF (IAD) salaries another, meeting revenues another, and so on. All these general ledger accounts (and all others as appropriate and agreed) roll up to an IASA cost center and to an IASA Cost Center PL. The term Accounts is confusing because it can mean so many different things. Regards, Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FYI: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-04.txt (fwd)
At 11:43 PM +0100 1/14/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Folks, as you can see, version -04 is out. It should reflect pretty accurately the items that seemed to have consensus as of last night; on still open issues, it contains either the same text as before or some proposed text. Harald, I have a couple of comments below; I will address some of the other questions raised by Margaret and Rob by responding to their mails. Also, note: the ISOC Board is reviewing the -04 version and my comments should not be interpreted as the full extent of ISOC's comments, those will be sent soon. -- In 2.1 IAOC: Internet Administrative Oversight Committee, defined by this document. Should be IETF rather than Internet (especially with the current governance discussion underway unless we really want to liven that discussion up :-). I think the references in the document itself are OK but I did not do a thorough check. -- In 2.2 principle 8 - note: this is not a critical change, but it may be helpful to more accurately reference later text in the document. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient s/reserves/reserves or other mechanisms/ exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of unexpected events such as income shortfalls. -- In 5.6 Operating Reserve As an initial guideline and in normal operating circumstances, the IASA should have an operating reserve for its activities sufficient to cover 6-months of non-meeting operational expenses, plus twice the recent average for meeting contract guarantees. However, the IASA shall establish a target for a reserve fund to cover normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent planning. This doesn't seem to parse clearly - are you suggesting that the targeted reserve fund will be different from the initial guideline as described in the first sentence (or maybe it's a timeframe difference?)? If you want to leave it up to IASA (IAOC?), why not say so directly, perhaps referencing the under normal operating circumstances etc. etc. Minor editorial comments: - In 3.1 6th para - delete redundant should - In 3.2 1st para - delete redundant be - In 4 4th para - delete redundant as Again, thanks to everyone (and especially Bert, Rob and Henrik) for all the work. Regards, Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call Comments on draft-iasa-bcp-04.txt
At 8:17 PM -0500 1/15/05, Margaret Wasserman wrote: I have a few comments on the latest IASA BCP draft, attached below. I don't think that I disagree with the document in any major way, but there are a few sections that are unclear enough (to me, anyway) that I'd like to see them clarified before this is published. Margaret --- I have four potentially substantive issues with the document and a few editorial issues. All of my separate issues are numbered: POTENTIALLY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES: snip ISSUE #2: 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. - 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 (DO) 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 GA allocation for items such as web support, Board of Trustee support, depreciation, electricity, office expenses, etc. As ISOC follows a cost center model, we can be very flexible in our reporting formats. We can show a PL 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. - Fund raising that benefits the IETF or related activities? (Current part of the ISOC standards pillar) TBD per the above. - Sending someone to a meeting of another standards body? (Has been covered by IETF chairs fund in past) should be in the future as well. - Flying ISOC staff to IETF, IAB or IASA meetings? (Currently covered by ISOC standards pillar) TBD per the above, there are many obvious proof points/justifications that can be agreed. - 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. 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. 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. 5. IASA Funding The IASA manages money from three sources: 1. IETF meeting revenues; 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
Re: Issue #737: Section 5.3 - Designated Donations [was RE: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3]
Hi Bert, At 3:40 PM +0100 12/23/04, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Inline -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Leslie Daigle Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 22:29 To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Lynn St.Amour Subject: Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3 Let me try a slightly different cut on the discussion. 1/ I believe the IETF is trying to address the fact we would like to be able to accept support in chunks that are greater than individual meeting fees, and less than $100kUS. IMHO, it's not that the IETF needs to be able to accept donations in *any* size between those, but I have heard people say that they know the person in their company who could write a cheque for $40k, if it will pecifically support the IETF, but there's no way they can get $100k through their budget. My feeling is that we all agree on the above. I have not seen anyone speak up against the principle above. The current text actually does capture that: ISOC shall create and maintain appropriate structures and programs to coordinate donations intended to support the work of the IETF, and these will 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. For the benefit of individuals, smaller organizations and countries with developing economies, ISOC shall maintain programs that allow for designated donations to the IETF. Lynn wants the last sentence removed. I can sort of see that, because it is a detail and it only explains (I think) why we want the programs to not be unduly restrcitive. What the last sentence may alllude to is that we are thinking about very small size of contributions (I could see individuals wanting to donate like a few tens of dollars a year). And so that is detail, and that indeed needs to be worked out and to be evaluated against possible cost for doing so (as explained somewhat by Lynn). It is probably OK to remove: For the benefit of individuals, smaller organizations and countries with developing economies, ISOC shall maintain programs that allow for designated donations to the IETF. and the text above The ISOC shall create and maintain... covers two items: - ISOC will continue (maintain) the current IETF donor program - ISOC will create (or update) the program to make the program not unduly restrictive. So are we OK on that? from my perspective, this is better. It will be critical to review the document as a whole once things are nearly settled. 2/ I believe we've also heard the IETF say that it wants to be able to clearly identify its collected assets (and, as the flipside, is willing to pay for all of its expenses). This is driven by a lot of factors, but I think the an important one is that the IETF believes it can and should be financially viable. Taking the bad along with the good, we want to be in an environment where we can prove that out empirically. I personally am not sure I want to prove that we (IETF) can and should be financially viable. But I DO want transparency, and as part of thta, I do want to see which donations were tagged and intended for IETF and how they have been allocated/credited to IETF. So my concern has been addressed with the text on transparency. Lynn also stated that we currently see a 90/10 rule in ISOC in that 80% of the donations are under $10K and they bring in some 10% of the all donations (If I understood here posting correctly). If that is the case, then a lower bound of $10K might be fine for explicit tagging. Now ... I have in my mind that the lower limit for tagging is currently $100K. So that seems to be an issue. But if donatins above $10k are only 20% of the (number of) donations, and make up 90% of the money, then allowing tagging of that seems fine. And for me, that seems captured in the ... to make the program not unduly restrictive. text. assuming I'm understanding this correctly :-) this seems fine. snip... Lynn also wanted anotehr sentence removed, namely the 1st sentence of ISOC shall create appropriate administrative structures to coordinate such donations with the IASA. In-kind resources are owned by the ISOC on behalf of the IETF and shall be reported and accounted for in a manner that identifies them as such. Designated monetary donations shall be credited to the appropriate IASA
Re: Issue #740: Section 2.2 5.6 - IASA BCP -02 Reserves [was RE: I ASA BCP -02 Reserves - section 2.2 /7 and 5.6]
At 8:44 AM -0500 12/26/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote: Hi Bert, W.r.t. the divisional vs cost center coounting We got the text on Divisional Accounting and on sepearet set of accounts from Glenn Ricart, so what should it be. If we do make a change we need to make it consistent over the whole doc. Probably best to keep that for working out when we sit down with the accountants? When are you planning to sit down with the accountants? The IETF LC for this document is scheduled to end in less than 2 weeks, and this sentence implies (to me anyway) that we still haven't had it reviewed by the accountants? Has it been reviewed by our lawyers? It has been reviewed within ISOC by the accountants, and while this is obviously helpful, many of the items under discussion are business items and not Accounting issues per se. Legal reviews are proving more difficult given the changing nature of the text and it's not clear to me that we will be able to complete this during the current last call timetable. Regards, Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
At 10:37 AM -0800 12/13/04, Eric Rescorla wrote: I agree with that, but that doesn't mean that our interests are entirely aligned. Indeed, partnerships are a situation in which it pays to take particular care to one's contracting arrangements because the respective point of alignment and disalignment are less obvious. agree, hence this discussion :-) over 80% of ISOC's org. members donate less than $10K annually and managing these in a 'restricted accounting manner' requires more effort and overhead. What fraction of the aggregate income comes from such donors? of the total org. member dues = on average 10% (not quite the 80/20 rule but close) Regards, Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 5.4 - oher ISOC support
At 2:41 PM +0100 12/13/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I've gone various ways on this, but I think that imposing a duty of regular payment on ISOC is appropriate - so that paying the IETF late doesn't become a tempting cash-flow management tool. I would be happy with a phrasing that asks for at least 3 payments per year. Brian Brian, what can we pay late? We have to pay salaries, RFC Editor, meeting contracts, outsourcing contracts, insurance, etc. on time. This makes it sound like a deposit model rather than paying for expenses? Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
At 5:46 AM -0800 12/13/04, Eric Rescorla wrote: As I read this section, the intention is to ensure that donors who wish their funds to be used by IASA can do so easily, rather than being forced to donate them to ISOC in general. I don't think this is actually an instance in which our interests are all entirely aligned, If we look at this as a partnership, I don't understand why not. If one looks at ISOC as only a funding mechanism for the IETF, this might seem to be the case. Our interests should be more aligned than simply financially. since it would obviously be more convenient for ISOC to have full discretion over the dispersal of funds, though it would provide fewer guarantees to IASA in terms of revenue flow. Could you explain a little further what flexibility this language removes? over 80% of ISOC's org. members donate less than $10K annually and managing these in a 'restricted accounting manner' requires more effort and overhead. Also, organizations/donors expect recognition appropriate to their contribution and that implies differing levels of value and distinction. And, language such as that in the BCP would require changes to our membership programs (reducing our flexibility wrt future program development) and consistent with other decisions to remove operational detail from the BCP, it seems as though this language should be removed as well. Finally, revamping membership/funding programs should not be done in a piecemeal manner and with the model proposed we risk drawing fairly arbitrary lines re designating support to the IETF vs. support to other ISOC/IETF (technical) education and policy programs. Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Re: ISOC shall create and maintain appropriate structures and programs to coordinate donations intended to support the work of the IETF, and these will 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. For the benefit of individuals, smaller organizations and countries with developing economies, ISOC shall maintain programs that allow for designated donations to the IETF. Editors' note: Some have suggested we need explicit IETF consensus on the above. So if you do not agree, please speak up ASAP. snip... ISOC shall create appropriate administrative structures to coordinate such donations with the IASA. In-kind resources are owned by the ISOC on behalf of the IETF and shall be reported and accounted for in a manner that identifies them as such. Designated monetary donations shall be credited to the appropriate IASA account. From ISOC's perspective, I would like to see the first paragraph above stop after unduly restrictive. The last sentence is unnecessarily restrictive and too proscriptive; and will significantly reduce needed flexibility. This also seems to go beyond the level of detail present in the rest of the document by trying to define operational procedures for ISOC's daily business. This would also mean the first sentence in the following paragraph beginning: ISOC shall create... should also be deleted. ISOC will, of course, work to ensure that all contributions are sought out, are appropriately recognized, and that barriers to donations are nonexistent. It is obviously in all our interests to do so. Managing a fundraising/recognition effort is complex and there are many sensitivities, it should be done carefully and with thought and as part of the organization's business and strategic context. Regards, Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IASA BCP -02 Reserves - section 2.2 /7 and 5.6
Bert, Rob, please find below comments on reserves. Thanks again for all your efforts. Section 2.2 7. The IASA shall work with ISOC to (?) 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 s/reserve./reserve as part of ISOC's overall reserve strategy and provisioning./ The changes above are to reflect the last known agreement (at least from ISOC's perspective it was the last known :-) . Some additional comments below. 5.6 Operating Reserve As an initial guideline and in normal operating circumstances, the IASA should have an operating reserve for its activities sufficient to cover 6-months of non-meeting operational expenses, plus twice the recent average for meeting contract guarantees. However, the IASA shall establish a target for a reserve fund to cover normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent planning. Rather than having the IASA attempt to build that reserve in its separate accounts, I don't believe this sentence reads properly given we're following a divisional accounting model (more appropriately called a cost center model?) as the accounts will not be held physically separate. Perhaps delete that part and begin the sentence with: the IASA looks to ISOC to build ? 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. The penultimate sentence above seems to be redundant, and in any case the last two sentences are not in agreement with the earlier ones that say it may be held as a line of credit, etc. nor with the notion that the IASA would not be holding a separate reserve (2.2 - 7 seems to imply the same thing?). Finally, access to these reserves would expect to follow normal IAOC and ISOC approval processes for any budget overruns and would not automatically be available for use by IASA in the event of meeting cancellations or other emergencies. Maybe replace the last two sentences with some variation of Access to these reserves would expect to follow normal IAOC and ISOC approval processes for any budget overruns. Best regards, Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Adminrest: more on sec 7
Harald, yes, that would read much better and is closer to what I believe our combined intent was/is. Regards, Lynn At 11:23 AM +0100 12/2/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: I think a global s/deposited in/credited to/ will do the right thing, given Rob's explanation of divisional accounting, and using account in the sense of what's accounted for. We do have consensus that the IASA has to account for the money that it handles to the community. I think 5.1, which currently says funds managed by IASA should be kept in a separate set of accounts, may want to say funds managed by IASA should be accounted for in a separate set of accounts. But I'm no more an accountant than I'm a lawyer. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Adminrest: section 5
Harald, Scott, This is much better and gives a good degree of flexibility. Regards, Lynn At 11:31 AM +0100 12/2/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: I don't think there is any principle in 2.2 that forms a basis for saying that we need to aim towards limiting IETF support to meeting fees and designated donations. snip Note that the goal is to achieve and maintain a viable IETF support function based on avaiable funding sources. The IETF community expects the IAOC and ISOC to work together to attain that goal, and recognizes that doing so will require striking some sort of balance. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: Blowing the bolts
At 10:16 AM -0500 11/28/04, John C Klensin wrote: Hi. As we try to raise other things back to the level of principles, I want to address one that seems to underlie some of the thinking that has led to what I believe to be too-specific, and probably misguided, provisions in the draft. snip... (2) Agreements. Let me argue, as others have, for principles here, not micromanagement specifics. I think Margaret's outline is a little too abstract, but there is a middle ground between it and talking about bank accounts. I think Bernard's idea/ analogy to pre-nuptial agreements is probably exactly right, This is something ISOC believes could be quite helpful as well. and I believe that we need to get competent professional advice on how one of those should be structured and what needs to be in it ... As a way of moving forward, I'd like to suggest the pre-nuptial be something the IASA Transition Team looks into as a priority, and then reports back to the community. This would set context for the next level of discussions below. not start slipping bank account or equivalent provisions into a BCP based on the financial administration experience of the IESG and IAB. Even from the standpoint of my limited knowledge in the area, there is a huge difference between asking for separation of funds and sound accounting and administrative practices or even escrow arrangements and getting down to bank accounts and lengths of times funds can be held. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: There is no proposal on the table for *IETF* incorporation (Was: Explosive bolts [Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring]
At 4:49 PM -0500 9/8/04, Pete Resnick wrote: On 9/8/04 at 4:54 PM -0400, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Should the IETF incorporate as a separate entity... To date, there has been no proposal, in Carl's document or otherwise as far as I know, for *the IETF* to incorporate as a separate entity. There have been proposals to incorporate a body to deal with IETF administrative functions (like contracting for meetings, contracting for ISP and web service, etc.), referred to in Carl's document as IETF Foundation. Incorporating that sort of entity wouldn't change the insurance coverage for members of the IETF, would it? pr -- Thanks Pete, I did mean the IETF Admin entity, despite the 'shorthand' terminology above. I had ISOC's Director of Finance - Lynn DuVal expand upon the earlier response. Her response is below. Yes, incorporating the administrative functions of the IETF will require that they obtain their own insurance policy. Once, a separate entity is formed, it requires its own federal identification number and hence its own insurance policy. (Doesn't matter if it is incorporated as a non-profit, for profit or as a foundation.) If the admin. entity does only admin, then they would need coverage which protects the officers against errors omissions in the admin. area only. ISOC could continue to cover any Standards activities. We would just need to be very specific about the split of responsibilities between the organizations to ensure that the policies were properly aligned. Regards, Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Explosive bolts [Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring]
At 8:55 AM -0400 9/8/04, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 09:21 +0200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And that's exactly why the liability insurance policy held by ISOC covers IETF officials today. Would someone who actually knows or can find out care to comment on whether the insurance would cover such officials if they started engaging in direct, large-scale, financial management and/or the direct supervision of those who were doing so, in addition to standards activities? john The ISOC Directors Officers insurance presently covers the IETF, IESG, IAB, IRTF, IRSG and IANA (IETF related) officials, and the RFC Editor. It extends to the level of Working Group chairs and also covers the NomComm process (including Recall Committees). This coverage would extend to financial management and/or direct supervision of those doing so in addition to standards activities, so long as the IETF was an unincorporated entity and was operating under the umbrella of ISOC (as you are today). Should the IETF incorporate as a separate entity, it would (obviously) no longer be covered under the ISOC insurance policy, but would require its own. Regards, Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publishing the budget (Re: Fwd: Re: Financial state of theIETF - to be presented Wednesday)
At 3:42 PM -0800 3/19/03, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Margaret also asked: Who decides how much of the ISOC's income is directed to IETF activities? Do we know what percentage of ISOC's income is represented in the $500-600K number? The RFC Editor budget is negotiated each year with the IAB chair, ISI and ISOC and is based on work chartered for the coming year, ISOC then fundraises to support this (plus of course enough to cover the costs of fundraising, associated staff support, rent and website, etc.). Discretionary spending for IETF IAB (meeting and conference call fees, etc.) are negotiated each year based on history and requirements. 2003's forecast for this plus insurance is $700K - 800K. Our other activities are meant to be self funding - that is we get grants, sponsorships or membership fees to cover specific expenses, this is especially true for education activities. We could attempt to increase fundraising for ISOC/the IETF. For instance, we don't send fundraising requests to IETF attendees (at least I've never received any). Does ISOC engage a professional fundraising firm? If not, maybe that should be considered. actually we do fundraise from the companies that participate in the IETF and we regularly get reports of companies and the number of attendees at the IETF (assuming some relation between this representation of interest and possible support). But we do not get names of individuals for privacy reasons, so there is no direct individual solicitation (unless the opportunity presents itself at the IETF meeting itself). All interested parties though are welcome to just reply to this memo. Lynn St.Amour President - ISOC
