This is a follow up to Harald's message of Jan 10.
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33578.html)
Section 7 of the -04 version of the Structure of the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (IASA) Internet-Draft mentions that any (positive) balance
in the IASA accounts (among other assets) would be transferred to a new
entity if the IETF and ISOC decided to part ways. This is as it should
be. But some people may have unrealistic expectations of the IETF/IASA
generating a running financial surplus such that a there might be a
positive balance to move to a new entity.
To date the IETF has never finished a year with a surplus, if one takes
into account all of the IETF expenses. CNRI/Foretec was able to show a
surplus during those years when the IETF meeting attendance was quite a bit
higher than we have seen in the last few years. (Attendance peaked at 2810
in December 2000 - see
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/past.meetings.html). But CNRI/Foretec did not
include the cost of the RFC Editor, insurance or other ISOC support in its
budget. They also did not include monies ICANN has spent on the IETF-IANA
function, which ICANN funds independently. If those expenses had been
included, there would have been a net deficit shown.
Going forward there is no reason to expect that the IETF will return to the
days of more than 2000 attendees at the meetings (and maybe that is a good
thing), so there is no reason to expect that meeting fees will come
anywhere close to the previous level. On the other hand, expenses are
pretty similar - when we had 2800 attendees, people complained about
meeting room size, and we still have to rent about the same number of the
same size of room to accommodate our present attendees. Depending on how
you view the numbers, the IETF's estimated annual shortfall will be between
$1.4 and $2.1 million. (See
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33228.html). It is
possible that designated donations could make up more than this difference
on an ongoing basis, but it does not seem likely that this will be the case.
Our point is this. We believe that the objective of the IETF should be, at
this point, to ensure that it has operating stability from a funding
perspective, not that it generate a surplus that it in fact never had. ISOC
sees itself as a partner with IETF - giving to IETF in the form of money
and other services, and accepting from IETF in the form of wisdom and
support on public policy and other issues. For its part, ISOC is prepared
to continue doing the necessary work - which it has been doing for perhaps
a decade - to make the continued financial position of the IETF secure.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
