Re: [Iasa20] Memo exploring options for IASA 2.0 models

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Andrew,

> On Feb 17, 2018, at 5:41 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 03:00:08PM -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> 
>> Seems to me that as long as ISOC provides most of the support for the IETF (and I think that true in each options presented), doesn’t this just morph into "ISOC is paying for the IETF, I gave money to the ISOC, why are you asking me again?".  Unless we are financially independent of ISOC, I don’t think moving to a new entity will really change this.
>> 
> 
> I don't think that's right.  Your argument depends on the "fungible
> funds" stance, which is indeed a current problem.  Even people who
> understand how to earmark funds donated to ISOC for the IETF currently
> argue that this just allows ISOC to redirect money that _would_ have
> gone to the IETF to some other activity.

But that doesn’t really happen, it’s more the opposite.  If the IETF goes over the budget it sets for the year, ISOC picks up the difference.  In the current model, the IETF never has a deficit.  For example, in 2016 from iaoc.ietf.org, the budget for the year showed an ISOC contribution of $2.17M vs. the actuals of $2.43M, so ISOC contributed $263K more than the IETF said would be needed.

> 
> Now, we have not discussed the practicalities of operating under any
> of the new models, but I would anticipate an arrangement in which the
> IETFAdminOrg had responsibility for some budget and operating within
> it.  This would mean ensuring that the IETF account (rather than the
> ISOC general account) was funded appropriately to meet the IETF needs.
> Money could flow back and forth across that boundary still, but it
> would be a more formal process and would necessitate more obvious
> controls.

Yes, but isn’t that what is supposed to be happening now.  There are budgets and actuals on iaoc.ietf.org since the IASA was created.  It’s worth reading https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2016-IETF-Year-End-Commentary.pdf .

I agree is a lot to be done to work out the operational issues with any of the new models.

> 
> This would quite likely mean that some of the historical tendency to
> figure out what to spend and then figure out how much money we needed
> to ask ISOC for would need to change, at least over time.  In my
> opinion, that sort of discipline would not be a bad thing.

I agree, as long as we are willing to deal with the consequences.  In my view, it will require money to be given a lot more consideration that it does in the current model.

Bob