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

[Brian Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 18/02/2018 02:41, Andrew Sullivan 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.
> 
> 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.

fwiw, I strongly agree with that. It's clearly a problem today. My
concern is about how much overhead & complexity we get when solving it.
 
> 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.

+1
   Brian
 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
>