Subject: Last Call Comments on draft-iasa-bcp-04.txt

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:17:33 -0500

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:

ISSUE #1:

There are three different descriptions of the IASA budget process (one
principle and two later sections), and they don't seem to agree with each
other about what role the ISOC BoT plays in the budget process and/or
who approves the IASA budget.

Details (my comments are marked with ">>"):

    3.  The IAD and IAOC, in cooperation with the ISOC President/CEO and
        staff, shall develop an annual budget for the IASA.  The budget
        must clearly identify all expected direct and indirect
        expenditures related to the IASA.  ISOC, through its normal
        procedures, shall evaluate and adopt the IASA budget as part of
        ISOC's own budget process and commit to ensuring funds to support
        the approved budget.

>>  This paragraph in the principles section says "ISOC, through its normal
>>  procedures, shall evaluate and adopt the ISOC budget".  I think that we
>>  have a general understanding that the ISOC BoT (as part of their fiduciary
>>  responsibilities) will need to fully understand and _approve_ the
>>  entire ISOC budget (including the IASA portions).  Although this
>>  principle mentions an "approved budget", there is no indication of
>>  who approves it until much later in the document and the later
>>  two references are not equivalent (see below).

    The IAD prepares an annual budget, which is subject to review and
    approval by the IAOC.  The IAD is responsible for presenting this
    budget to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as part of ISOC's annual
    financial planning process.  The IAOC is responsible for ensuring the
    budget's suitability for meeting the IETF community's administrative
    needs, but the IAOC does not bear fiduciary responsibility for ISOC.
    The ISOC Board of Trustees therefore needs to review and understand
    the budget and planned activity in enough detail to carry out their
    fiduciary responsibility properly.  The IASA publishes its complete
    budget to the IETF community each year.

>>  Following up on my comment above...  This section indicates that
>>  the IAOC approves the budget, but it doesn't mention ISOC BoT
>>  approval, just that the ISOC Board would "review and understand"
>>  the IASA budget.

    September 1: The ISOC Board of Trustees approves the budget proposal
       provisionally.  During the next 2 months, the budget may be
       revised to be integrated in ISOC's overall budgeting process.

>>  Here it does indicate that the ISOC BoT will need to approve the
>>  IASA budget, and that the budget presented by the IAOC/IAD may
>>  be revised to fit into ISOC's overall budget.  I think that this
>>  should be reflected in the sections I've noted above, or you
>>  should include less detail above and reference this section
>>  instead.

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)
	- 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?:

- Fund raising that benefits the IETF or related
   activities?  (Current part of the ISOC standards
   pillar)
- Sending someone to a meeting of another
   standards body? (Has been covered by IETF
   chairs fund in past)
- Flying ISOC staff to IETF, IAB or IASA meetings?
   (Currently covered by ISOC standards pillar)
- Support for Non-IETF RFC publication?
   (Currently covered by ISOC standards pillar)

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.

    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.

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 IASA? Or to the ISOC standards pillar?  Or to "support
>>  of the IETF"?  Is there any difference?

5.1  Divisional Accounting

    Funds managed by IASA shall be accounted for in a separate set of
    accounts.  Separate financial reports, including a balance sheet and
    a profit and loss statement for IASA alone, shall be produced as
    directed by IAOC.

>>  Here we say that the IASA accounts will be accounted separately
>>  (presumably _not_ including fund raising costs, as those won't
>>  be managed by IASA).

    ISOC shall create and maintain appropriate structures and programs to
    coordinate donations intended to support the work of the IETF, and
    these shall 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.  ISOC shall maintain programs that allow for designated
    donations to the IETF.

>>  Is it intended that these funds would be dedicated to the ISOC
>>  standards pillar (as a significant number of the platinum donations
>>  are today)?  Or that they would be dedicated to IASA?  Or to
>>  "the IETF" in some more general sense?

    Transparency: The IETF community shall have complete visibility into
       the financial and legal structure of the ISOC standards activity.
       In particular, a detailed budget for the entire standards
       activity, quarterly financial reports, and audited annual
       financial reports shall all be available to the IETF community.

>>  Is the "ISOC standards activity" intended to be different (a
>>  superset perhaps?) of the IASA activity?  If so, what is included
>>  here that isn't included in the IASA finances?

ISSUE #3:

I don't understand the meaning of the following paragraph.  To
whom does the IAOC justify a decision to perform a specific function
"in-house"?  And what does it mean for decisions and staffing to be
reviewed against a zero base assumption?  What is a "zero base"
assumption?

    In principle, IETF administrative functions should be outsourced.
    Decisions to perform specific functions "in-house" should be
    explicitly justified by the IAOC, with these decisions and staffing
    reviewed by the IAOC on a regular basis and against a "zero base"
    assumption.

ISSUE #4:

    The IASA expects 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.  In
    the long term, financial reserves are preferable; it should be a goal
    for ISOC to reach this level of reserves within 3 years after the
    creation of the IASA.

>>  What is meant by "In the long term, financial reserves are
>>  preferable"?  Last time I remember reading this section, it said
>>  something like "It is not expected that these reserves can be
>>  accumulated immediately; it should be a goal for ISOC to reach...".
>>  Does the new wording mean that ISOC should hold the full reserve
>>  in cash?  If so, I strongly disagree.  Was there a community discussion
>>  that prompted this change?

EDITORIAL/MINOR ISSUES:

ISSUE #5:

    6.  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.

>>  What is the purpose of the last line?  Is there some fear that
>>  someone would accept inapproprite in-kind donations?  What happens
>>  if they do?

ISSUE #6:

    8.  The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient

>>  s/shall ensure/shall attempt to ensure/  ??

        reserves exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of
        unexpected events such as income shortfalls.

ISSUE #7:

    The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously.  If the IAOC
    cannot achieve a unanimous decision, the IAOC decides by voting.

>>  I agree with the proposal to change unanimity to consensus in this
>>  paragraph.

ISSUE #8:

    If someone believes that the IAOC has violated the IAOC rules and
    procedures, he or she can ask the IETF leadership to investigate the
    matter, using the same procedure as is used for appeals of procedural
    issues in the IETF, starting with the IESG.

>>  I don't like the use of the term "IETF leadership" in this section,
>>  as it is a subject of some debate who is included in the "IETF
>>  leadership".  Who, exactly, are we expected to contact if we think
>>  that the IAOC is violating IAOC rules or procedures?

ISSUE #9:

       Any balance in the IASA accounts, any IETF-specific intellectual
       property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also
       transition to the new entity.  Other terms shall be negotiated
       between the IETF and ISOC.

>>  Just a nit, perhaps...  It is my understanding that ISOC can only
>>  transition funds to "the new entity" if the new entity is a
>>  501(3)(c) corporation whose goals are in alignment with ISOCs
>>  charitable, scientific or educational purposes, or something
>>  like that.  I don't know all of the details, but it might be good to
>>  add "To the extent allowed by law," (or something similar) at the
>>  beginning of the first sentence above.

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:41:49 -0500 (EST)

Margaret asks

> >>  someone would accept inapproprite in-kind donations?  What happens

I intended that last line to make it clear that its the IETF (though the 
IAD and IAOC) that decides if an in-kind donations is actually something
that the IETF wants and is comfortable with any conditions - for
example someone might be concerned if the ISOC accepted an offer
from Bill' bait & sushi shop to sponsor lunches at IETF with the minor
requirement that an add for BB&SS be appened to all RFCs

Scott

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:41:49 -0500 (EST)

Margaret asks

Scott

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:00:36 -0500

At Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:17:33 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> ...

<hat editor=on>

Yeah, I tripped over both of these while doing a cleanup pass on -04
Thursday night, and had them flagged as points for discussion if
nobody else brought them up first.  I didn't change either of them on
that pass because #3 was the result of a long list discussion about
how to phrase the "outsourcing" thing, and #4 was potentially
substantive.

On #3: I assume that "zero base" is a reference to "zero-base
budgeting" (ZBB), a technical term in financial circles.  I don't
think we're using it literally, and agree that the usage is unclear.

I -think- the intent here is to say that anything done in-house has to
be justified, not just initially but with periodic review.  ZBB is
basicly about forcing ongoing projects to justify themselves in the
same way that new projects would have to when it comes time to do
budgeting, so nobody gets to say "please give us $N because it's what
we got last year."  So I think the overall intent here is reasonable,
but the phrasing needs work.

On #4: my current understanding is that this is -intended- to be a
suggestion that it would be better for both IETF and ISOC to have cash
reserves, but I agree that it doesn't read that way.  I have other
comments on this issue, but need to change hats to make them.

</hat>

<hat editor=off just-another-bozo=on>

A previous version of the text for #4 read as if the IETF were
demanding a dowery from ISOC, which really bothered me.  The text in
-04 isn't that bad, and the specific statement that the "surplus" (if
any) can count against the "reserve" is a step in the right direction,
but the current version still reads a bit like the IETF giving ISOC
orders about how ISOC should spend ISOC money that comes neither from
IETF meeting fees nor from designated donations, which is just wrong.

Telling ISOC how to spend IETF money is appropriate, but if folks from
the IETF want to control how ISOC spends -other- ISOC money, they (we)
should join ISOC, not put demands into this BCP.  But maybe it really
is just intended as a suggestion.  If this is just a suggestion from
the IETF to ISOC, it's badly phrased.

Personally, I don't think this needs to be in the BCP at all, but from
comments I've seen it's obvious that others would disagree.

In any case, this is, at least in potential, a substantive issue, so
we'd better settle it.

</hat>

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:55:40 -0800 (PST)

I agree with Scott on this one.  In-kind contributions are great if they
have a real purpose, which in this case it means the folks responsible for
deploying the contribution have to agree it is worth the trouble.

Another example is somebody accepting a bunch of equipment for use in
the next IETF meeting when the NOC doesn't necessarily need or want that
item. 

Regards,

Carl

---

From: "Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:34:42 -0500

At 8:17 PM -0500 1/15/05, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>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
>
>---
>

<snip>

>	- 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.

>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 (D&O) 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 G&A 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 P&L 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.

>   activities?  (Current part of the ISOC standards

TBD per the above.

>   standards body? (Has been covered by IETF

should be in the future as well.

>   (Currently covered by ISOC standards pillar)

TBD per the above, there are many obvious "proof 
points"/justifications that can be agreed.

>   (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.

>>>  improvements to the IETF infrastructure.

I believe it shouldn't but TBD per the above.

>>>  IETF finances" and "managing separate financial accounts for the

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.

>>>  of the IETF"?  Is there any difference?

I don't think there is a difference, but what about changing it to: 
Donations designated in support of the IETF where IETF as defined by 
the aggregation of the IETF agreed cost centers.  If the IETF is 
reporting on it, there's an assumed linkage and IASA is the 
administrative support activity not the top-level entity.

>    Funds managed by IASA shall be accounted for
>

s/in a separate set of accounts./in separate cost center accounts./

>   Separate financial reports, including a balance sheet and

I believe it should be the IETF per my comment above.

>>>  here that isn't included in the IASA finances?

<snip>

>>>  someone would accept inapproprite in-kind donations?  What happens

I think the last line is fine, it's a good business practice and one 
ISOC would follow in any case.

<snip>

>>>  beginning of the first sentence above.

we can transfer them a number of different places, but with different 
consequences, so your proposed amendment is good.

Regards,

Lynn

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:04:00 -0500

--On Saturday, January 15, 2005 11:00 PM -0500 Rob Austein 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> budgeting" (ZBB), a technical term in financial circles.  I
> don't think we're using it literally, and agree that the usage
> is unclear.

Actually, it is also used in a variety of administrative 
contexts, see below.

> I -think- the intent here is to say that anything done
> in-house has to be justified, not just initially but with
> periodic review.  ZBB is basicly about forcing ongoing
> projects to justify themselves in the same way that new
> projects would have to when it comes time to do budgeting, so
> nobody gets to say "please give us $N because it's what we got
> last year."  So I think the overall intent here is reasonable,

Mea culpa.  I think I used the term in one of my notes without 
really intending that it be adopted literally into the text, 
then didn't catch it and correct when it was.   The intent is 
not only that the projects be rejustified as if they were new, 
but with the assumption that, even if the projects are 
justified, they are entitled to zero staff (or any other 
resources) except insofar as the staffing can be justified at 
whatever level is appropriate.

How the text should be fixed depends a bit on what we do about 
that "outsourcing" assumption, to which I continue to object. 
If we can lose it, the paragraph might end up reading something 
like:

        The IAOC is expected to determine what IETF
        administrative functions are to be performed, and how or
        where they should be performed (e.g., internally to the
        IASC or by outside organizations), so as to maintain an
        optimal balance of functional performance and cost of
        each such function.   The IAOC should document all such
        decisions, and the
        justification for them, for review by the community. Each
        function should be reviewed on a regular basis, using the
        assumption that the function is unnecessary and that, if
        necessary, it is overstaffed, rather than an assumption
        that anything that has been done is necessary, and
        adjusted as needed.

That probably still needs word smithing.  The second sentence 
may be redundant enough with other statements in the BCP that it 
can be removed.  And the last sentence is a bit long.  But it is 
at least relatively jargon-free.

And, fwiw, I completely agree with you on the following: my 
preference would be to pull this out since, if the situation I 
think it is intended to deal with arises, it won't help.  Any 
reserve that represents an ISOC guarantee, rather than 
IETF-collected funds (for which there are carry-forward 
provisions elsewhere) don't need to be "held" in any specific 
way, and it is undesirable to try to specify otherwise: the 
important thing is the guarantee.  The IETF-collected funds 
don't really count against the reserve as that is now described 
in the document, they are just money that prevents the reserve 
from being needed/used.  If one is contemplating a break in the 
relationship,  IETF-collected funds should belong to the IETF 
but it is unrealistic to expect ISOC to extend any guarantees 
against cost overruns past the point at which they lose all 
review capability over how we spend money, i.e., the point of 
divorce... and that has been covered elsewhere.

> demanding a dowery from ISOC, which really bothered me.  The
> text in -04 isn't that bad, and the specific statement that
> the "surplus" (if any) can count against the "reserve" is a
> step in the right direction, but the current version still
> reads a bit like the IETF giving ISOC orders about how ISOC
> should spend ISOC money that comes neither from IETF meeting
> fees nor from designated donations, which is just wrong.
>
> Telling ISOC how to spend IETF money is appropriate, but if
> folks from the IETF want to control how ISOC spends -other-
> ISOC money, they (we) should join ISOC, not put demands into
> this BCP.  But maybe it really is just intended as a
> suggestion.  If this is just a suggestion from the IETF to
> ISOC, it's badly phrased.
>
> Personally, I don't think this needs to be in the BCP at all,
> but from comments I've seen it's obvious that others would
> disagree.
>
> In any case, this is, at least in potential, a substantive
> issue, so we'd better settle it.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:57:02 +0100

--On 16. januar 2005 19:34 -0500 "Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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.

Lynn,

I actually disagree here.

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.

The mind-picture I get from "cost center" is "label applied to some group 
of activities".

I'd have no problem with ISOC saying to IASA "we propose that we implement 
the IASA accounts through the mechanism that we have built for cost 
centers", and I think it's very appropriate that you try to check that the 
BCP contains nothing that prevents you from doing that.

But I'd prefer for the BCP to continue using the term "accounts".

                    Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:53:08 +0100

--On 15. januar 2005 20:17 -0500 Margaret Wasserman 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Are all three of these things considered equivalent?

I would regard the two first as equvalent, and we should hunt out all 
occurences of "IETF accounts", and replace them with "IASA accounts".
I do not regard the terms you have in parentheses as equivalents, however - 
the IASA budget is a document that is prepared, approved, presented to the 
community and archived, saying what IASA's plans are for a given year, and 
"support of the IETF" may be money (accounted for in accounts), in-kind 
donations (accounted for in accounts) or work (not accounted for).

WRT the ISOC standards pillar, I would say that that is ISOC's business to 
decide; the IETF wants the work defined as "IASA" done, and it's up to 
ISOC, not the IETF, whether it has any further use for the name "standards 
pillar" after establishing IASA as a distinct, accountable-for entity.

>  If not,
I think all of these, and the overhead costs of running an organization at 
all (BoT and all that) are costs of providing the support of the IETF 
through ISOC, and therefore they should be accounted for as part of the 
IASA. But I did not get much response last time the question got asked, so 
for all I know, I may be alone in that view....

>    (Currently covered by ISOC standards pillar)

I know that I think IASA should keep the current RFC Editor contract in 
place for 2005 (which means that IETF support should pay for the 
independent submission series this year), and that this question should be 
addressed as part of the negotiation for an open process in 2006 - at the 
moment, the independent publication series is totally resource-starved 
because the IETF has been increasing its output quite a bit, and I don't 
think that's optimal for the Internet.

                Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:15:51 +0100

(hmm... autocompletion seems to have done something wrong here... 
redirecting thread to [email-masked]...)

--On mandag, januar 17, 2005 08:51:19 -0500 Margaret Wasserman 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> WRT the ISOC standards pillar, I would say that that is ISOC's
>> business to decide; the IETF wants the work defined as "IASA" done,
>> and it's up to ISOC, not the IETF, whether it has any further use
>> for the name "standards pillar" after establishing IASA as a
>> distinct, accountable-for entity.
>
> Under the ISOC responsibilities section of the document, the current BCP
> states that ISOC should produce public quarterly and annual financial
> statements for the "ISOC standards activity" (presumably meaning the ISOC
> standards pillar?).  I don't have any fundamental objection to that, as
> ISOC already produces public financial reports for all of its activities,
> but the remainder of that paragraph seems (to me) to imply that the ISOC
> standards activity and the IASA are one in the same.

That sounds wrong to me! The BCP should stick to requirements for the IASA 
activity, not go into anything else. (I think it's natural for ISOC to 
decide that its standards activity and IASA are one and the same - but I 
don't think the IETF should be the one that decides that!)

So in section 7, we have the only occurences (I think):

   Transparency: The IETF community shall have complete visibility into
      the financial and legal structure of the ISOC standards activity.
      In particular, a detailed budget for the entire standards
      activity, quarterly financial reports, and audited annual
      financial reports shall all be available to the IETF community.
      In addition, key contract material and MOUs shall also be publicly
      available.  The IAD and IAOC are responsible for providing regular
      overviews of the state of the IASA to the IETF community.

If this is only to speak to the IASA activity, it becomes:

   Transparency: The IETF community shall have complete visibility into
      the financial and legal structure of the IASA activity.
      In particular, a detailed budget for the entire IASA,
      quarterly financial reports, and audited annual
      financial reports shall all be available to the IETF community.
      In addition, key contract material and MOUs shall also be publicly
      available.  The IAD and IAOC are responsible for providing regular
      overviews of the state of the IASA to the IETF community.

Does this look right(er)?
(All other occurences of the word "standards" seem linked to IETF's 
standards process. That's good.)

                Harald

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:24:20 -0500

>the money/bank account aspect.

The BCP currently states that it is up to ISOC how to organize the 
IASA (as a cost center, subsidiary, etc.)...  I think that the 
document is using the term "accounts" in a generic sense, and that 
ISOC could set-up those accounts as cost centers if that is what ISOC 
wants to do.  ISOC could also set up IASA as a cost center now, and 
change the structure later if there is reason to do so (growth of one 
or both organizations, etc.).

>but as the BCP doesn't specifically address the last two point 
>above, I thought it might be helpful to try and define them.
>
>- Fundraising and Organization Member support expenses - Direct 
>staff time, travel, marketing expenses

As I mentioned in my response to Harald, this does not match his 
response (which would place all of these things under IASA).  So, I 
think we have some work to do to make this a bit clearer.

I think that your response offers a better structure.  By housing 
IASA, I don't think that ISOC should give up its discretion to fund 
other standards pillar activities, and I don't think it makes sense 
for the IAD/IAOC to decide which members of the ISOC staff need to 
attend IETF meetings, etc.  I also think that the structure that you 
have proposed supports a better separation between fund raising and 
IASA.

>to the next level of implementation.

This makes sense, and this may be what the BCP is currently 
suggesting -- the IAD/IAOC reports on the IASA finances and ISOC 
reports on the finances for the full ISOC Standards Pillar.  If so, 
that makes sense to me, but I think it could be a bit clearer in the 
document.

>changes, so would the discussion re financial support.

Right.  And, in the structure that you have described above, ISOC 
could choose to fund the RFC Editor's independent publication series 
under the ISOC Standards Pillar, even if the IETF did not choose to 
fund it under IASA.  (I am not saying that we would -- I actually 
don't know what we would do in this situation, and I hope it doesn't 
arise).

>I believe it shouldn't but TBD per the above.

So, if some company gives a donation to "the IETF" what happens? 
Does ISOC deduct some sort of fundraising/administrative overhead off 
the top and then credit the remainder to the IASA accounts?  Or does 
ISOC credit the whole amount to the IASA accounts? If ISOC deducts 
some overhead first, then I agree that it would be double dipping to 
go back to IASA for fund raising money.  But, if we credit the whole 
amount, who pays for the staff costs, travel, marketing programs 
and/or other expenses related to fund raising?

>financial accounts" with "managing IASA Cost Centers" and it becomes 

You are using the plural here ("Cost Centers")..  Do you think that 
IASA will have more than one?  Or that there will be a single IASA 
cost center?

>administrative support activity not the top-level entity.

Would ISOC still accept donations that are designated to the "ISOC 
standards pillar", and would these be handled any differently from 
donations designated "in support of the IETF"?

>I believe it should be the IETF per my comment above.

So, where would the money come from to fund the items that you have 
listed under the ISOC standards pillar above (the ones that aren't 
included in IASA)?  Would it come from "IETF" donations?  From 
non-restricted ISOC funds?  Either way, this is probably okay with 
me.  I just want to make sure that we have a common understanding of 
this before we go forward.

Margaret

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:32:30 -0500

>standards process. That's good.)

This looks correct to me, but I'm not sure why it would be covered 
under "ISOC responsibilities", since this is a responsibility of the 
IAD/IAOC (right?).  It is also stated quite clearly elsewhere.

Is there some level of transparency that we are expecting form _ISOC_ 
(as distinct from the IASA) regarding this activity?  If so, we 
should list that here -- maybe just that ISOC would support the
IAD/IAOC in producing these reports?  Otherwise, perhaps we should 
just delete this paragraph?

Margaret

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:00:37 -0500

>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <[email-masked]> writes:

    John> How the text should be fixed depends a bit on what we do
    John> about that "outsourcing" assumption, to which I continue to
    John> object. If we can lose it, the paragraph might end up
    John> reading something like:

    John>         The IAOC is expected to determine what IETF
    John> administrative functions are to be performed, and how or
    John> where they should be performed (e.g., internally to the IASC
    John> or by outside organizations), so as to maintain an optimal
    John> balance of functional performance and cost of each such
    John> function.  The IAOC should document all such decisions, and
    John> the justification for them, for review by the
    John> community. Each function should be reviewed on a regular
    John> basis, using the assumption that the function is unnecessary
    John> and that, if necessary, it is overstaffed, rather than an
    John> assumption that anything that has been done is necessary,
    John> and adjusted as needed.

    John> That probably still needs word smithing.  The second
    John> sentence may be redundant enough with other statements in
    John> the BCP that it can be removed.  And the last sentence is a
    John> bit long.  But it is at least relatively jargon-free.

I support the intent of this paragraph and the implied move away from
the current out sourcing text.  I think the last sentence could use
some work but could accept the current text.

--Sam

---

From: "Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:18:23 -0500

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 P&L.

The term "Accounts" is confusing because it can mean so many different things.

Regards,
Lynn

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:18:50 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> That sounds wrong to me! The BCP should stick to requirements for the 
> IASA activity, not go into anything else. (I think it's natural for ISOC 
> to decide that its standards activity and IASA are one and the same - 
> but I don't think the IETF should be the one that decides that!)
> 

Yes
    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:15:42 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I do not regard the terms you have in parentheses as equivalents, 
> however - the IASA budget is a document that is prepared, approved, 
> presented to the community and archived, saying what IASA's plans are 
> for a given year, and "support of the IETF" may be money (accounted for 
> in accounts), in-kind donations (accounted for in accounts) or work (not 
> accounted for).
> 
> WRT the ISOC standards pillar, I would say that that is ISOC's business 
> to decide; the IETF wants the work defined as "IASA" done, and it's up 
> to ISOC, not the IETF, whether it has any further use for the name 
> "standards pillar" after establishing IASA as a distinct, 
> accountable-for entity.

Fully agree. In particular, there has been at least one occasion in the
past when another standards body seriously considered coming under ISOC's
umbrella, and there's no reason this couldn't happen again in future.

> I think all of these, and the overhead costs of running an organization 
> at all (BoT and all that) are costs of providing the support of the IETF 
> IASA. But I did not get much response last time the question got asked, 
> so for all I know, I may be alone in that view....

Mainly I agree, but it would be quite hard to decide what fraction
of ISOC Board costs should be assigned to IETF support. Even though during
my tenure at ISOC, we got the amount of unassigned general & administration
costs drastically reduced, there will always be something.

> independent submission series this year), and that this question should 
> be addressed as part of the negotiation for an open process in 2006 - at 
> the moment, the independent publication series is totally 
> resource-starved because the IETF has been increasing its output quite a 
> bit, and I don't think that's optimal for the Internet.

Agreed.

   Brian

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:02:20 +0100

>> Does this look right(er)?

OTOH, if fundraising is part of the ISOC standards activity, but is not 
part of the IASA (there's a reasonable argument in "separation of concerns" 
that this should be the case), this definitely needs a requirement for 
transparency, separate from the requirement on the IASA.

                    Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:51:08 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> part of the IASA (there's a reasonable argument in "separation of 
> concerns" that this should be the case), this definitely needs a 
> requirement for transparency, separate from the requirement on the IASA.

Yes, but that is surely out of scope for this BCP?

    Brian