Re: IASA BCP Section 5.3
scott bradner wrote: bert goes on to ask OTOH if ISOC received an unexpected donation for IETF purposes, that should be transferred promptly - does this need to be stated somewhere? I would assume, that if such a donations was indeed for IETF purposes that it would then be earmarked as such or be a designated donation, and so section 5.2 covers that case and moves it directly into the IASA (bank) account. Is that suffiecient, or are you looking for other/more text? see previous posting re a bank account it seems to eb that the concept of a designated donation and earmarking it for the IETF (only) should be enough For me the key word is promptly whether the credit is to an internal ISOC account or to a real bank account, which is a separate issue. My point is to ensure that it's IASA's cash flow that benefits. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IASA BCP Section 5.3
Brian, nobody followed up on this remark of yours yet: OTOH if ISOC received an unexpected donation for IETF purposes, that should be transferred promptly - does this need to be stated somewhere? I would assume, that if such a donations was indeed for IETF purposes that it would then be earmarked as such or be a designated donation, and so section 5.2 covers that case and moves it directly into the IASA (bank) account. Is that suffiecient, or are you looking for other/more text? Bert ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IASA BCP Section 5.3
bert goes on to ask OTOH if ISOC received an unexpected donation for IETF purposes, that should be transferred promptly - does this need to be stated somewhere? I would assume, that if such a donations was indeed for IETF purposes that it would then be earmarked as such or be a designated donation, and so section 5.2 covers that case and moves it directly into the IASA (bank) account. Is that suffiecient, or are you looking for other/more text? see previous posting re a bank account it seems to eb that the concept of a designated donation and earmarking it for the IETF (only) should be enough Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP Section 5.3
Geoff Huston wrote: At 11:04 PM 17/11/2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: I have some comments on Section 5.3 of the IASA BCP, Other ISOC Support. The first paragraph of this section says: Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as specified in Section 6. ISOC will deposit the yearly amount (as agreed to in approved budget) in equal portions. At a minimum such deposits will be made quarterly. This seems unnecessarily restrictive. Not at all - it seems to me to be entirely necessary and appropriate in these circumstances. The IASA needs to operate like any other enterprise - it needs to manage its cash flow, and manage its overall financial position. Your depiction of the financial position makes this more and more like an operational department of ISOC with all funding management placed under the control of ISOC. Frankly this is not what I understand ISOC offered the IETF. The use of forward planning and timed periodic payments according to a documented schedule of such regular payments allows the IASA and ISOC to understand in advance the scale of commitments in terms of the budgetary process for the entire year, as well as being able to manage cash flow based once more on the foreknowledge of the points of money transfer from ISOC to IASA. I fear that Geoff is right. He and I both chaired ISOC during a period when it had serious cash flow problems. If for some unpleasant reason that happened again, we wouldn't want IASA to be at their mercy. Having ISOC formally committed to a regular rate of transfer seems prudent. OTOH if ISOC received an unexpected donation for IETF purposes, that should be transferred promptly - does this need to be stated somewhere? Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IASA BCP Section 5.3
I have some comments on Section 5.3 of the IASA BCP, Other ISOC Support. The first paragraph of this section says: Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as specified in Section 6. ISOC will deposit the yearly amount (as agreed to in approved budget) in equal portions. At a minimum such deposits will be made quarterly. This seems unnecessarily restrictive. Budgets are not always flat quarter-to-quarter. Since there are only three IETF meeting a year, there is a quarter in which no IETF meeting is held. Also, if there is a hiring plan for new staff and/or a particular project that begins or ends during the year, the funding needs of the IETF may differ from quarter to quarter. I would rather that the document say: Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as specified in Section 6. The amount of allocated funds and the dates on which funds will be transferred to the IASA account will be agreed as part of the budgeting process. The second paragraph in this section says: If ISOC directly funds any other IETF expenses, such as the IETF share of ISOC's liability insurance premium, this will be documented together with the other IASA accounts. I'm not really sure what this means... There are some complexities to this budgeting process that aren't captured in this document, and I don't think that they should be. However, calling out one particular point (such as insurance) really begs the question of why other things that fall into this category are not called out. I would prefer that we simply delete this paragraph from the BCP. It does seem likely to me that there will be a single ISOC DO insurance policy and that the costs of that policy will be allocated to the ISOC standards pillar as part of the overhead. But, I don't understand the point of calling out this particular expense as something special... There are other costs (such as paying a qualified accountant to figure these things out) that will also fall into this category. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP Section 5.3
The second paragraph in this section says: If ISOC directly funds any other IETF expenses, such as the IETF share of ISOC's liability insurance premium, this will be documented together with the other IASA accounts. I'm not really sure what this means... There are some complexities to this budgeting process that aren't captured in this document, and I don't think that they should be. However, calling out one particular point (such as insurance) really begs the question of why other things that fall into this category are not called out. I would prefer that we simply delete this paragraph from the BCP. Hi Margaret - I think the point here was not to single out insurance but to say that the IETF would like to see what is known in accounting circles as a full allocation. That means that some attempt is made in the books to allocate general expenses (such as insurance) among various programs. An alternative accounting model is simply to calculate overhead (e.g., unallocated expenses) and use some metric (e.g., total expenses by pillar or activity) to do the allocation. That's kind of what we have today (of $2m in revenues, $600k is lumped into the overhead category). I think what the paragraph in the bcp intended to say is the former not the latter. It does seem likely to me that there will be a single ISOC DO insurance policy and that the costs of that policy will be allocated to the ISOC standards pillar as part of the overhead. But, I don't understand the point of calling out this particular expense as something special... There are other costs (such as paying a qualified accountant to figure these things out) that will also fall into this category. Might it read better something like this? In the case of additional direct expenditures by ISOC which benefit the IETF and other activities, ISOC shall attempt to allocate such expenses by activity, allowing IASA to gain an accurate view of the true cost of support activities. And, to the accountants: don't lump all general expenses into a ga budget line: at least attempt to break stuff out by program if it makes sense to do such an allocation. Regards, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP Section 5.3
The second paragraph in this section says: If ISOC directly funds any other IETF expenses, such as the IETF share of ISOC's liability insurance premium, this will be documented together with the other IASA accounts. I'm not really sure what this means... There are some complexities to this budgeting process that aren't captured in this document, and I don't think that they should be. However, calling out one particular point (such as insurance) really begs the question of why other things that fall into this category are not called out. I would prefer that we simply delete this paragraph from the BCP. It does seem likely to me that there will be a single ISOC DO insurance policy and that the costs of that policy will be allocated to the ISOC standards pillar as part of the overhead. But, I don't understand the point of calling out this particular expense as something special... There are other costs (such as paying a qualified accountant to figure these things out) that will also fall into this category. This text is my fault. I agree - the insurance is only an example, but since it appears to be singled out, let's lose the example. Then it could read If ISOC pays any other IETF expenses directly, without transferring funds to the IASA, this will be documented as a footnote to the IASA accounts. And why specify this? For transparency. Otherwise we might slip back into the old regime of hidden expenditures and lack of a clear overview of the budget. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IASA BCP Section 5.3
Inline -Original Message- From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 08:11 To: Carl Malamud Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IASA BCP Section 5.3 At 7:40 AM -0800 11/17/04, Carl Malamud wrote: Might it read better something like this? In the case of additional direct expenditures by ISOC which benefit the IETF and other activities, ISOC shall attempt to allocate such expenses by activity, allowing IASA to gain an accurate view of the true cost of support activities. That sounds good, Carl. Brian's wording is also fine with me. It just read strangely to me to single out insurance. I will note that it was/is listed as such as... and so it was/is just an example. I can also live with the text of eitehr Carl or Brian. Bert Margaret ___ 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 Section 5.3
At 11:04 PM 17/11/2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: I have some comments on Section 5.3 of the IASA BCP, Other ISOC Support. The first paragraph of this section says: Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as specified in Section 6. ISOC will deposit the yearly amount (as agreed to in approved budget) in equal portions. At a minimum such deposits will be made quarterly. This seems unnecessarily restrictive. Not at all - it seems to me to be entirely necessary and appropriate in these circumstances. The IASA needs to operate like any other enterprise - it needs to manage its cash flow, and manage its overall financial position. Your depiction of the financial position makes this more and more like an operational department of ISOC with all funding management placed under the control of ISOC. Frankly this is not what I understand ISOC offered the IETF. The use of forward planning and timed periodic payments according to a documented schedule of such regular payments allows the IASA and ISOC to understand in advance the scale of commitments in terms of the budgetary process for the entire year, as well as being able to manage cash flow based once more on the foreknowledge of the points of money transfer from ISOC to IASA. The second paragraph in this section says: If ISOC directly funds any other IETF expenses, such as the IETF share of ISOC's liability insurance premium, this will be documented together with the other IASA accounts. I'm not really sure what this means... It means that there are single payments to an external entity that are for services provided to both ISOC and the IETF and in such case the document acknowledges that ISOC may undertake such payments (rather than the IASA) and in such cases the ISOC and IASA accounts would show the relevant apportionment of the payment. There are some complexities to this budgeting process that aren't captured in this document, and I don't think that they should be. However, calling out one particular point (such as insurance) really begs the question of why other things that fall into this category are not called out. I think that 'such as is a valid way of indicating this as an example of such a payment. I would see this as conventional use of the english language in this context. I would prefer that we simply delete this paragraph from the BCP. I believe that this is a valid point of documenting instances where the asset transfer to IASA is not explicit, the reason why, and the proposed accounting procedure to address this. Geoff ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
