Subject: Re: AdminRest: BCP -03: Special audits

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:24:57 +0100

Jonne,

Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> sorry to tune in late, but keeping up with all the mails that are going
> around I needed a vacation at the place of my in-laws...
> 
> I think the issue of a yearly audit has been solved already in the past
> (Issue 721). However, I think that there is no mention of a special
> audit outside the yearly. Special audit - as I understand it - is an
> audit that is done by an auditing company _not_ being the one usually
> used in the circumstances where there is a doubt that the IAD and/or the
> IOAC have used the funds if the IASA improperly. This is a case that
> doesn't happen often, but...
> 
> Normally, in a company, such audits are decided by the owners of the
> company. So, rules in which circumstances such audit is merited is
> normally not written down. However, as here is no clear owner, maybe
> such a rule should be written down. 
> 
> Do people understand the issue that I am raising? 

Yes

> Do people agree with
> me?

No, because since by definition the circumstances would be special,
I don't see how we can write down a general rule. It's simply one of the
things that could happen during an appeal under section 3.4.

     Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:59:29 +0200

Brian,

> > Do people understand the issue that I am raising? 

Good.

> things that could happen during an appeal under section 3.4.

What I was maybe more proposing was to have in writing who can order a
special audit. For instance, can IAB, IESG, or the ISOC BoT order it? 

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]