Subject: IETF surplus

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:01:05 -0800

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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:49:51 +0100

Fred,

there are multiple ways of analyzing history - what you say is certainly 
true if you include the cost of the RFC Editor, but do not consider the 
contributions from the ISOC Platinum program to the standards pillar to be 
"designated donations" in support of the IETF. But that's water under the 
bridge....

I agree with you that the current document does not require the IASA to try 
to accumulate a surplus in its account, and my expectation is that it will 
not do so - so the IETF is looking to ISOC to provide operating stability 
for the IASA function. So I think we agree on the plan going forward from 
here.

               Harald

--On 20. januar 2005 10:01 -0800 Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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.