Re: IESG's support

[Charles Brownstein <[e-mail]>]

Geoff's comment suggests some essential points. First, trust, after due
consideration, and within acceptable accounting practice, is the bottom
line. Second, the IESG would quite possibly (by any arrangement other than
a donation or gift to some party) become a legal and financial creature of
ISOC with a defined ability to act. The actions would be taken on broadly
agreed priorities; they would be legally and in all other senses speaking,
ISOC actions.

That is not necessarily a problem, but someone should duely consider the
ramifications of actions which could produce encumberences on parties that
could end up linked, e.g, INET cosponsors, IETF Secretariate, etc., and the
potential (worst case/best case, real) effect of such linkages on the
overall structure (e.g., ISOC, IETF) that we are attempting to realize. For
example, if the IETF raised meeting fees but failed to cover expenses,
would ISOC be responsible? If ISOC had insufficient funds to cover legal
fees generated by IESG actions, who would be responsible? What (and how
would) actions taken by the IESG be seperable from those of th IETF? Does
any of this matter?

At 10:13 PM 4/5/95, Geoff Huston wrote:
>Dan does identify a good point about the linkages here, and one approach
>is to make the account available and nominate the explicit provisions
>incumbent on the IESG regarding how money can be spent (such provisions
>being basically those incumbent on ISOC in its own nature of expenditure).
>
>After that its an IESG issue regarding priorities and actual areas
>of expenditure and the nature of the expenditure.
>
>surely this can work effectively?
>
>
>Geoff
>

Charles N. Brownstein
Executive Director
Cross-Industry Working Team
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive
Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Internet: [e-mail]

On the Web: http://www.cnri.reston.va.us:3000/XIWT/public.html