[KI-LC] Telecon Reminder - Wed November 10 at 17:00 UTC
Colin.Wallis at dia.govt.nz
Wed Nov 10 16:34:29 EST 2010
Notwithstanding the judgement to be made on potential impact of KI's 501 C 6 status, I broadly support the direction Bob is suggesting here.
It takes out a loop-back in the process, which saves time and effort, with little negative consequences that I can see. Please shout if I am missing something.
As Bob points out, we have a year of experience under our belt now, looking ahead and envisaging the potential exceptions to the policy (insofar as that is precise), it may be appropriate to nail this in time for the operationalisation of the 2011 budget requests.
From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Bob Pinheiro
Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2010 5:55 p.m.
To: lc at kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Telecon Reminder - Wed November 10 at 17:00 UTC
Several of the budget requests are for funds to write or update various reports, recommendations, or specifications of interest to the requesting WGs. It's not clear in these proposals whether the WGs seek to hire outside contractors to perform the work, or whether it is intended that Kantara funds be allocated to specific WG participants.
As you may recall, considerable effort was expended earlier this year to define an external funding process to provide a way for WGs to secure funding when (a) Kantara cannot provide the funds, or (b) when funds are being requested specifically to support individual WG participants. This last point was needed because the Kantara policy (although not specifically stated in the Operating Procedures or Bylaws) is that, in general, the work necessary to generate WG deliverables is expected to be done by volunteer participants.
Specifically, that policy seems to be as follows:
* As a general rule, the LC will not recommend to the BoT funding for a project where the funds are expected to go to a Participant of the WG seeking the funding.
* If the WG receives funding for a project, and is unable to find a non-Participant to perform the work, after going through documented reasonable efforts to do so, the LC can be petitioned to allow the WG to spend the allocated funding on a Participant to do the funded work.
* If a Participant is allowed to receive the funding for the work, the Participant must recuse him/herself from any votes within the WG relating to the funded work.
For those budget requests where it may be desired to allocate funds to participants, the rules apparently require that these WGs will later need to petition the LC to be able to allocate the funds to certain participants, after providing thorough documentation that no non-participants are available.
At least one case arose in 2010 in which Kantara funds were later allocated to a specific WG participant. I think this suggests that, in many cases, it may be difficult to find an "outsider" unfamiliar with the WG's activities who could perform the task as well as a qualified participant.
My purpose here is not to reopen the discussion that lead to the need for an external funding policy, especially as it pertains to funding of individual WG participants. I only wish to suggest that the LC might want to consider changing its position on this matter, in the following way:
* A WG seeking Kantara funds should state whether it believes any of the funds being requested may be needed to support the efforts of individual WG participants. If that is the case, the funding request should not automatically be rejected, but should still be forwarded to the BoT subject to the same review that other proposals undergo. As long as it is understood up front that some of the funds are to support specific WG participants, a WG should not need to get special permission later on from the LC to allocate those funds to specific participants.
Of course, WGs may always seek external funding if Kantara funds are not forthcoming.
It seems reasonable to me that every WG desiring funds should be able to seek Kantara funds, even if some of the funds are intended to support individual participants. It would then be up to the LC and/or BoT to approve, modify, or deny the request based on the merits of the funding proposal, available funds, etc. External funding always remains a possibility for any WG that cannot secure Kantara funds to meet its needs.
On 11/9/2010 6:02 PM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
NOTE: Please make note of the change in UTC. The LC teleconference is
being held at the traditional US times, but it will be at 17:00 UTC due
to the time change in the US as indicated in the note from Anna. 
* Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2010
* Time: 9am PST | 12pm EST | 17:00 UTC 
* Teleconference Options:
o Skype: +9900827043671716
o US Dial-In: +1-201-793-9022 | Room Code: 3671716
This should be an interesting call, so please make every effort to
attend so we can achieve quorum.
As 2010 is winding down, we need to finalize the budget planning for
2011 so please review the detailed budget requests and be prepared to
discuss them in detail. There are also some reports to review/accept
(as well as some discussion about modifying the OP to be more
Also, we hope to usher in the next 12 months with new leadership.
Please join me in congratulating our new officers as Colin and I hand
over the baton to John Bradley (Chair), Pete Palmer (Vice Chair), and
Eve Maler (Secretary).
The live agenda can be found on the wiki:
And as it stands, here's a snapshot:
1. Roll Call for Quorum Determination
2. Approval of prior meeting minutes
1. Review: Leadership Council Teleconference - 2010-10-13
2. Review: Leadership Council Meeting - 2010-10-19 Notes 
3. Review: Leadership Council Teleconference - 2010-10-27 Notes 
3. LC Officer Election Results + Handover
4. 2011 Budget Planning:
1. Place a member on the Budget Planning Committee of the BoT
2. Review: Submitted Requests 
3. Submit Requests to the BoT BPC
5. Review Report Process in the OP
6. Consider Submitted Reports:
1. From InfoSharing WG
1. Information Sharing Report 
2. pRFP Engagement Model 
2. From Telco ID WG
1. Bridging IMS & Internet Identity white paper (version
1.1)  + Disposition of Comments 
As you can see, the agenda is packed (and depending on how the budget
discussion goes, we may want to explore an interim meeting next week to
close it out).
Thanks, and see you on Wednesday.
CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC