RE: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
--On Wednesday, 08 December, 2004 14:21 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On 8. desember 2004 14:00 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the IETF accounts, they shall be irrevocably allocated to the support of the IETF. That one seems sensible to me. And is completely consistent with the more specific treatment in section 5, I think. Folks, this discussion (and the whole thread) suggests a very important general point to me. Since I've tried to make it before and want to avoid being inflammatory, I won't repeat it here. At a more specific level, the suggested text, both above and in iasa-bcp-02, omit one case that should be covered, especially if we are get even close to words like irrevocably. However slight we might consider the possibility, the IETF might actually, some day, reach the point of sufficient irrelevancy that no one cared any more and that no one but the most dedicated of Go-ers bothered to come to meetings, volunteer to serve on the Nomcom, agree to serve on the IAB or IESG if selected, and so on. If we achieved that position, I'd hope the IETF could fade quietly into the night, rather than, e.g., having to maintain an IASC structure forever in order to manage whatever residual funds existed. So, IMO, the further we go in the direction of irrevocably committing funds to the IETF, the more we need to make explicit provisions for IETF failure as well as for ISOC failure or some other separation event. The usual mechanisms are to designate some appropriate charity. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with that charity _being_ ISOC, but other arrangements and selection mechanisms are possible -- they just require more words and processes. In any event, the document doesn't appear to do that job yet. john ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I don't think irrevocably assigned to the IETF works well for money. I actually also have kept that sentence in the principles, namely at principle 5. It does not read so bad. This is what it sais in my working copy: my co-editor Rob did not think the reading was really good either, so when we checked again, we took the sentence out. SO in revision 02 that we posted later last night (early this morning) it is gone. If you want it back, pls re-raise/open the issue. I do want it back. Of course the exact words don't matter, but I think that Principle 5 in Section 2.2 needs to be explicit that the funds belong to the IETF whatever happens. For example: All such funds and donations shall belong irrevocably to the IETF. I can't personally see a better word than irrevocably, but it is really a lawyer/accountant question how to phrase it. Brian Bert t There shall be a detailed public accounting to separately identify all funds available to and all expenditures relating to the IETF and to the IASA, including any donations, of funds or in-kind, received by ISOC for IETF-related activities. In-kind donations shall only be accepted at the direction of the IAD and IAOC. All such funds and donations shall be irrevocably assigned to the IETF. /t Bert Having it in the principles is the best solution. Brian In all other cases, money going to support the IETF is called credited to the IASA account. In section 5, section 5.2 and 5.3 talk about money credited to the IASA account. I'd rather add a section before section 5.5 that simply says: 5.x IASA expenses The IASA exists to support the IETF. Therefore, only expenses related to supporting the IETF can be debited to the IASA account. I like it, so I have added it to my working copy of the document. Bert That should make it clear enough that the transfer of money into the IASA account is intended to be irrevocable. Makes sense? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 09:56:15 +0100 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I don't think irrevocably assigned to the IETF works well for money. I actually also have kept that sentence in the principles, namely at principle 5. It does not read so bad. This is what it sais in my working copy: my co-editor Rob did not think the reading was really good either, so when we checked again, we took the sentence out. SO in revision 02 that we posted later last night (early this morning) it is gone. If you want it back, pls re-raise/open the issue. I do want it back. Of course the exact words don't matter, but I think that Principle 5 in Section 2.2 needs to be explicit that the funds belong to the IETF whatever happens. For example: All such funds and donations shall belong irrevocably to the IETF. I can't personally see a better word than irrevocably, but it is really a lawyer/accountant question how to phrase it. I actually think a lawyer/accountant would have more trouble with the word belong - since the IETF is STILL not an entity capable of claiming ownership, I think you need to do something like this: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF. Does that make sense? (I'm not sure it does - any simple formulation I make up on the spot either makes it so that meeting fees fall outside or that ISOC funding promises are also irrevocable, making the within-year budget adjustments allowed for later violate the principle. My inability to formulate the principle right doesn't mean that the principle is invalid, however...) Harald ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 09:56:15 +0100 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I don't think irrevocably assigned to the IETF works well for money. I actually also have kept that sentence in the principles, namely at principle 5. It does not read so bad. This is what it sais in my working copy: my co-editor Rob did not think the reading was really good either, so when we checked again, we took the sentence out. SO in revision 02 that we posted later last night (early this morning) it is gone. If you want it back, pls re-raise/open the issue. I do want it back. Of course the exact words don't matter, but I think that Principle 5 in Section 2.2 needs to be explicit that the funds belong to the IETF whatever happens. For example: All such funds and donations shall belong irrevocably to the IETF. I can't personally see a better word than irrevocably, but it is really a lawyer/accountant question how to phrase it. I actually think a lawyer/accountant would have more trouble with the word belong - since the IETF is STILL not an entity capable of claiming ownership, I think you need to do something like this: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF. Does that make sense? (I'm not sure it does - any simple formulation I make up on the spot either makes it so that meeting fees fall outside or that ISOC funding promises are also irrevocable, making the within-year budget adjustments allowed for later violate the principle. My inability to formulate the principle right doesn't mean that the principle is invalid, however...) Indeed :-) We agree, I think. Your phrase is OK for me. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Harald asks: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF. Does that make sense? works for me Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
While I agree that it is a question for lawyers, I think that are in the permanent posession, until it is decided that funds will be spent is a better way to put it. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
At 10:20 AM +0100 12/8/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF. There are already laws about designated/earmarked donations that make this true. I think that the point that Brian was trying to make is that the meeting fees should also be committed to the support of the IETF. The fact of the matter is that it is unlikely that the IETF will have a surplus generated by meeting fees and designated donations, so it is hard to get excited about this problem. However, I do understand the point that if we ever do have a surplus from these sources, we don't want ISOC to use that money for other nefarious purposes :-). I don't think that there is any real disagreement about this, but I do think that it is difficult to: (1) Determine how much of this should be explained in the BCP. and (2) Figure out how to say it. Maybe we could be more simple in our wording? Something like: The IETF meeting fees and IASA/IETF-designated donations will only be used to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding sources is larger than the total cost of the IASA function, the surplus will be held in the IASA account for later use to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding sources is smaller than the total cost of the IASA function, resulting in a deficit, we are expecting ISOC to cover that deficit from non-IASA/IETF designated funds. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Bert suggests: 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'd rather Harald's suggestion Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF. its cleaner and more to the point Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Margaret Wasserman wrote: At 10:20 AM +0100 12/8/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF. There are already laws about designated/earmarked donations that make this true. I think that the point that Brian was trying to make is that the meeting fees should also be committed to the support of the IETF. The fact of the matter is that it is unlikely that the IETF will have a surplus generated by meeting fees and designated donations, so it is hard to get excited about this problem. However, I do understand the point that if we ever do have a surplus from these sources, we don't want ISOC to use that money for other nefarious purposes :-). I don't think that there is any real disagreement about this, but I do think that it is difficult to: (1) Determine how much of this should be explained in the BCP. and (2) Figure out how to say it. Maybe we could be more simple in our wording? Something like: The IETF meeting fees and IASA/IETF-designated donations will only be used to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding sources is larger than the total cost of the IASA function, the surplus will be held in the IASA account for later use to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding sources is smaller than the total cost of the IASA function, resulting in a deficit, we are expecting ISOC to cover that deficit from non-IASA/IETF designated funds. What we're really trying to say is ISOC can't take (or take back) any money or in-kind donation that has been logged in as an IETF asset. How that is said is really a question for the legal adviser, I think. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
On 8 dec 2004, at 10.20, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF. I am not sure I understand what it means. i.e. are you trying to say that donations to the IETF are to be allocated to the IETF's budget and may not be reallocated to another budget? or is there some other content? a. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Hi Brian, At 2:26 PM +0100 12/8/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote: What we're really trying to say is ISOC can't take (or take back) any money or in-kind donation that has been logged in as an IETF asset. How that is said is really a question for the legal adviser, I think. I don't think that there is any major disagreement about this, either... Well, except that there is no such thing as an IETF asset, but that can be worked around with the wording that Harald suggested. My concern is that we need to make sure that the BCP does not over-proscribe the financial arrangements, which can only lead to one of two things (1) reducing our nimbleness/flexibility, or (2) running into enough situations where the IAOC and ISOC ignore the BCP that it later comes to have no relevance to the actual financial structure. I have been on the ISOC Board for about 1-1/2 years. In that time, we done a number of things that don't easily fit into the model of strictly separate accounts with regular quarterly payments from ISOC to IASA: (1) We've set aside substantial amounts of money that _might_ be spent on IETF-related activities in our budget without allocating them, (2) We've made unplanned allocations (from the funds we set aside) to cover IETF restructuring-related expenses, and (3) We've covered an unanticipated cost-overrun at the RFC editor. These were all good things to do at the time, and I don't think that we want to set-up a budget structure that would stop us from doing similar things in the future. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 08:19:16AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman allegedly wrote: The IETF meeting fees and IASA/IETF-designated donations will only be used to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding sources is larger than the total cost of the IASA function, the surplus will be held in the IASA account for later use to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding sources is smaller than the total cost of the IASA function, resulting in a deficit, we are expecting ISOC to cover that deficit from non-IASA/IETF designated funds. IMHO this is cleaner and makes the point completely. The sentence about irrevocable donations felt redundant and limited in what it covered. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Margaret, you examples seem to be the cases where this text of rev 2 of the iasa-bcp would apply (last para of sect 6): The IAD shall provide monthly accountings of expenses, and shall update expenditures forecasts every quarter. This may require adjustment of the IASA budget: if so, the revised budget will need to be approved by the IAOC, the ISOC President/CEO and, if necessary, the ISOC Board of Trustees. I.e. unexpected things will need ad hoc handling and adjustments. Or do I not understand you? Bert -Original Message- From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 08:40 To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts Hi Brian, At 2:26 PM +0100 12/8/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote: What we're really trying to say is ISOC can't take (or take back) any money or in-kind donation that has been logged in as an IETF asset. How that is said is really a question for the legal adviser, I think. I don't think that there is any major disagreement about this, either... Well, except that there is no such thing as an IETF asset, but that can be worked around with the wording that Harald suggested. My concern is that we need to make sure that the BCP does not over-proscribe the financial arrangements, which can only lead to one of two things (1) reducing our nimbleness/flexibility, or (2) running into enough situations where the IAOC and ISOC ignore the BCP that it later comes to have no relevance to the actual financial structure. I have been on the ISOC Board for about 1-1/2 years. In that time, we done a number of things that don't easily fit into the model of strictly separate accounts with regular quarterly payments from ISOC to IASA: (1) We've set aside substantial amounts of money that _might_ be spent on IETF-related activities in our budget without allocating them, (2) We've made unplanned allocations (from the funds we set aside) to cover IETF restructuring-related expenses, and (3) We've covered an unanticipated cost-overrun at the RFC editor. These were all good things to do at the time, and I don't think that we want to set-up a budget structure that would stop us from doing similar things in the future. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Scott W Brim wrote: On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 08:19:16AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman allegedly wrote: The IETF meeting fees and IASA/IETF-designated donations will only be used to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding sources is larger than the total cost of the IASA function, the surplus will be held in the IASA account for later use to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding sources is smaller than the total cost of the IASA function, resulting in a deficit, we are expecting ISOC to cover that deficit from non-IASA/IETF designated funds. IMHO this is cleaner and makes the point completely. The sentence about irrevocable donations felt redundant and limited in what it covered. This is OK, but if I was still on the ISOC Board I might have some questions about the last sentence. s/expect/hope/ perhaps. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
This is OK, but if I was still on the ISOC Board I might have some questions about the last sentence. s/expect/hope/ perhaps. This makes sense, particularly in light of my belief that the IETF should ask ISOC for its support, not presume it. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 10:23:33 -0500 Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is OK, but if I was still on the ISOC Board I might have some questions about the last sentence. s/expect/hope/ perhaps. This makes sense, particularly in light of my belief that the IETF should ask ISOC for its support, not presume it. I actually think the whole thread is very much congruent to what's specified in section 5 of iasa-bcp-02. Can the debaters please check that, and see if we still want more changes? Remember - section 2.2 is (short) principles, section 5 is the (longer) description of how we plan to implement them; both are part of the BCP that we want to be committed to and change VERY rarely. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 14:28:32 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8 dec 2004, at 10.20, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF. I am not sure I understand what it means. i.e. are you trying to say that donations to the IETF are to be allocated to the IETF's budget and may not be reallocated to another budget? that's exactly what I wanted to say, and what -02 section 5.5 already says; I was trying to use the word irrevocable in there, and keep it short enough to put it in principles. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 10:23:33 -0500 Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is OK, but if I was still on the ISOC Board I might have some questions about the last sentence. s/expect/hope/ perhaps. This makes sense, particularly in light of my belief that the IETF should ask ISOC for its support, not presume it. I actually think the whole thread is very much congruent to what's specified in section 5 of iasa-bcp-02. Can the debaters please check that, and see if we still want more changes? Remember - section 2.2 is (short) principles, section 5 is the (longer) description of how we plan to implement them; both are part of the BCP that we want to be committed to and change VERY rarely. This is a matter of principle I think - so I do see value in an explicit sentence in 2.2. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Doesn't work for me -- who defines what is supportive? In the context of moving forward with the BCP and working with ISOC, it's obviously clear. But, to the extent that the text is meant ot address the case that the ISOC-IASA relationship is changing, we should not leave it until then to have the discussion about who calls the shots on supporting. Maybe, minimally: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF, by the mechanism defined by IETF consensus process. (I don't think that's quite it... but perhaps a start). Beyond that: get a lawyer or accountant to figure it out! Leslie. Scott Bradner wrote: Harald asks: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF. Does that make sense? works for me Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --- Reality: Yours to discover. -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
--On 8. desember 2004 14:00 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the IETF accounts, they shall be irrevocably allocated to the support of the IETF. That one seems sensible to me. And is completely consistent with the more specific treatment in section 5, I think. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
I think you are wanting to say that donation of funds to the IETF be placed under the exclusive control of the IETF support program within ISOC. This phrasing is slightly stronger than the irrevocable commitment phrase, but does fall just short of explicitly stating 'distinct fund account held in a financial institution'. And indeed: Beyond that: get a lawyer or accountant to figure it out! Geoff At 06:57 AM 9/12/2004, Leslie Daigle wrote: Doesn't work for me -- who defines what is supportive? In the context of moving forward with the BCP and working with ISOC, it's obviously clear. But, to the extent that the text is meant ot address the case that the ISOC-IASA relationship is changing, we should not leave it until then to have the discussion about who calls the shots on supporting. Maybe, minimally: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF, by the mechanism defined by IETF consensus process. (I don't think that's quite it... but perhaps a start). Beyond that: get a lawyer or accountant to figure it out! Leslie. Scott Bradner wrote: Harald asks: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF. Does that make sense? works for me Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --- Reality: Yours to discover. -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Geoff responded to Leslie I think you are wanting to say that donation of funds to the IETF be placed under the exclusive control of the IETF support program within ISOC. This phrasing is slightly stronger than the irrevocable commitment phrase, but does fall just short of explicitly stating 'distinct fund account held in a financial institution'. I think that neither Leslies, nor Geoff wording includes the meeting fees, does it? And in my (personal) opinion we should include those as well. And indeed: Beyond that: get a lawyer or accountant to figure it out! I think we need to try to get some text in there that states (as good as possible) what we (IETF) want and then have that reviewed by legal, while at the same time doing IETF Last Call maybe. Bert Geoff At 06:57 AM 9/12/2004, Leslie Daigle wrote: Doesn't work for me -- who defines what is supportive? In the context of moving forward with the BCP and working with ISOC, it's obviously clear. But, to the extent that the text is meant ot address the case that the ISOC-IASA relationship is changing, we should not leave it until then to have the discussion about who calls the shots on supporting. Maybe, minimally: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF, by the mechanism defined by IETF consensus process. (I don't think that's quite it... but perhaps a start). Beyond that: get a lawyer or accountant to figure it out! Leslie. Scott Bradner wrote: Harald asks: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF. Does that make sense? works for me Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --- Reality: Yours to discover. -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
At this point, I think I am confused. I have paged back through the e-mail thread, and attempted to see whether my version would or would not, should or should not, include meeting fees, and have not been able to put together an authoritative picture... I think I want to see what you think the current text is, in the context of the whole document revision, before I comment further. Leslie. Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Geoff responded to Leslie I think you are wanting to say that donation of funds to the IETF be placed under the exclusive control of the IETF support program within ISOC. This phrasing is slightly stronger than the irrevocable commitment phrase, but does fall just short of explicitly stating 'distinct fund account held in a financial institution'. I think that neither Leslies, nor Geoff wording includes the meeting fees, does it? And in my (personal) opinion we should include those as well. And indeed: Beyond that: get a lawyer or accountant to figure it out! I think we need to try to get some text in there that states (as good as possible) what we (IETF) want and then have that reviewed by legal, while at the same time doing IETF Last Call maybe. Bert Geoff At 06:57 AM 9/12/2004, Leslie Daigle wrote: Doesn't work for me -- who defines what is supportive? In the context of moving forward with the BCP and working with ISOC, it's obviously clear. But, to the extent that the text is meant ot address the case that the ISOC-IASA relationship is changing, we should not leave it until then to have the discussion about who calls the shots on supporting. Maybe, minimally: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF, by the mechanism defined by IETF consensus process. (I don't think that's quite it... but perhaps a start). Beyond that: get a lawyer or accountant to figure it out! Leslie. Scott Bradner wrote: Harald asks: Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the IETF. Does that make sense? works for me Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --- Reality: Yours to discover. -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --- Reality: Yours to discover. -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Iresponded to Harald: Harald writes: Brian, I don't think irrevocably assigned to the IETF works well for money. I actually also have kept that sentence in the principles, namely at principle 5. It does not read so bad. This is what it sais in my working copy: t There shall be a detailed public accounting to separately identify all funds available to and all expenditures relating to the IETF and to the IASA, including any donations, of funds or in-kind, received by ISOC for IETF-related activities. In-kind donations shall only be accepted at the direction of the IAD and IAOC. All such funds and donations shall be irrevocably assigned to the IETF. /t Bert Having it in the principles is the best solution. Brian In all other cases, money going to support the IETF is called credited to the IASA account. In section 5, section 5.2 and 5.3 talk about money credited to the IASA account. I'd rather add a section before section 5.5 that simply says: 5.x IASA expenses The IASA exists to support the IETF. Therefore, only expenses related to supporting the IETF can be debited to the IASA account. I like it, so I have added it to my working copy of the document. Bert That should make it clear enough that the transfer of money into the IASA account is intended to be irrevocable. Makes sense? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Harald writes: Brian, I don't think irrevocably assigned to the IETF works well for money. In all other cases, money going to support the IETF is called credited to the IASA account. In section 5, section 5.2 and 5.3 talk about money credited to the IASA account. I'd rather add a section before section 5.5 that simply says: 5.x IASA expenses The IASA exists to support the IETF. Therefore, only expenses related to supporting the IETF can be debited to the IASA account. I like it, so I have added it to my working copy of the document. Bert That should make it clear enough that the transfer of money into the IASA account is intended to be irrevocable. Makes sense? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In thinking about this, I think about the fungibility of funds. By having a common account, cash flow issues that might be an issue at various points of the year can be dealt with more easily. For example if funds are earmarked for meeting fees, but collections have not come in time for the year's first meeting, it is simpler to deal with when the funds come from a common account. On the other hand, transparency requires the ability to inspect the accounts that are pertinent to the IETF, its budget vs it projected expenditure vs its actual expenditures. This can, I believe, be adequately handled by so-called 'divisional accounting'. Exactly. I think the -01 draft has it right, except that I propose adding a sentence at the end of paragraph 5 in section 2.2: All such funds and donations shall be irrevocably assigned to the IETF. (Like my irrevocable for the intellectual property, this is intended for the bolt-blowing situation.) Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Hi Brian, At 10:38 AM +0100 12/3/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On the other hand, transparency requires the ability to inspect the accounts that are pertinent to the IETF, its budget vs it projected expenditure vs its actual expenditures. This can, I believe, be adequately handled by so-called 'divisional accounting'. Exactly. I think the -01 draft has it right, except that I propose adding a sentence at the end of paragraph 5 in section 2.2: All such funds and donations shall be irrevocably assigned to the IETF. (Like my irrevocable for the intellectual property, this is intended for the bolt-blowing situation.) Who are we trying to protect ourselves from? And what does it mean for funds to be irrevocably assigned to the IETF? While I agree that the IASA accounting needs to be transparent and understandable, I think that we should be cautious about making public, hard-to-change rules about our own accounting structures and fund transfers that may limit our flexibility and/or negatively impact the stability of the organization later. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
I am afraid this is meaningless unless this is insurred and warranted by a third party and the money in escrow, what a Bank is for. I am even afraid this is illegal wording in the way you intend it. Whatever the irrevocability ISOC may sign, ISOC is bound by legal and tax priority obligations. In all this, have the tax and insurance obligations, in international field, for both ISOC BoD and IETF interested people, have been considered? What you ask the ISOC to be is to be the IETF's Bank. At 10:38 03/12/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In thinking about this, I think about the fungibility of funds. By having a common account, cash flow issues that might be an issue at various points of the year can be dealt with more easily. For example if funds are earmarked for meeting fees, but collections have not come in time for the year's first meeting, it is simpler to deal with when the funds come from a common account. In other words this is money lending business. How do you see the profit/loss shared, reported and taxed? Are payments accepted in different currencies? This currency exchange business. On a permanent basis. On the other hand, transparency requires the ability to inspect the accounts that are pertinent to the IETF, its budget vs it projected expenditure vs its actual expenditures. This can, I believe, be adequately handled by so-called 'divisional accounting'. This means that IETF is a Division of ISOC and ISOC is legally responsible for the consequences of the deeds of the IETF. May I recall that IETF has no legal/tax representative but that ISOC has local incoporated chapters. Who is going to pay for their legal defense in the case someone sues one them as the local representative of their parent organization division? As a local ISOC Member, I want a wording telling Judges that in no way, local ISOC Chapters can be taken as responsible for the consequences of the Internet documents publised by the ISOC IETF division. This will have probably no legal impact in case of an action against them as a local ISOC representative, but it will permit the ISOC chapters to be reimbursed by ISOC if they have been judged partly accountable for the result of using the ISOC's IETF department deliveries and of their public information. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
In thinking about this, I think about the fungibility of funds. By having a common account, cash flow issues that might be an issue at various points of the year can be dealt with more easily. For example if funds are earmarked for meeting fees, but collections have not come in time for the year's first meeting, it is simpler to deal with when the funds come from a common account. On the other hand, transparency requires the ability to inspect the accounts that are pertinent to the IETF, its budget vs it projected expenditure vs its actual expenditures. This can, I believe, be adequately handled by so-called 'divisional accounting'. a. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
