Subject: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3

From: "Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 01:02:00 +0100

Re:

>ISOC shall create and maintain appropriate  structures and programs 
>to coordinate donations  intended to support the work of the IETF, 
>and these will include mechanisms for both in-kind and  direct 
>contributions to the work supported by  IASA. Since ISOC will be the 
>sole entity through  whom donations may be made to the work of the 
>IETF, ISOC shall ensure that those programs are not  unduly 
>restrictive. For the benefit of  individuals, smaller organizations 
>and countries  with developing economies, ISOC shall maintain 
>programs that allow for designated donations to  the IETF."
>
>  Editors' note: Some have suggested we need explicit  IETF consensus 
>on the above. So if you do not agree,  please speak up ASAP.

snip...

>
>ISOC shall create appropriate administrative  structures to 
>coordinate such donations with the  IASA.  In-kind resources are 
>owned by the ISOC on behalf of the IETF and shall  be reported and 
>accounted for in a manner that  identifies them as such.  Designated 
>monetary donations shall be credited  to the appropriate IASA 
>account.

 From ISOC's perspective, I would like to see the first paragraph 
above stop after  ....unduly restrictive.  The last sentence is 
unnecessarily restrictive and too proscriptive; and will 
significantly reduce needed flexibility.  This also seems to go 
beyond the level of detail present in the rest of the document by 
trying to define operational procedures for ISOC's "daily business". 
This would also mean the first sentence in the following paragraph 
beginning: "ISOC shall create... " should also be deleted.

ISOC will, of course, work to ensure that all contributions are 
sought out, are appropriately recognized, and that barriers to 
donations are nonexistent.   It is obviously in all our interests to 
do so.  Managing a fundraising/recognition effort is complex and 
there are many sensitivities, it should be done carefully and with 
thought and as part of the organization's business and strategic 
context.

Regards,

Lynn

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 05:46:58 -0800

"Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]> writes:

>  trying to define operational procedures for ISOC's "daily
>  business". This would also mean the first sentence in the following
>  paragraph beginning: "ISOC shall create... " should also be deleted.
>
> ISOC will, of course, work to ensure that all contributions are sought
> out, are appropriately recognized, and that barriers to donations are
> nonexistent.   It is obviously in all our interests to do so.

As I read this section, the intention is to ensure that donors
who wish their funds to be used by IASA can do so easily, rather
than being forced to donate them to ISOC in general. I don't
think this is actually an instance in which our interests
are all entirely aligned, since it would obviously be more 
convenient for ISOC to have full discretion over the dispersal
of funds, though it would provide fewer guarantees to IASA 
in terms of revenue flow.

Could you explain a little further what flexibility this language
removes?

-Ekr

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:25:53 +0100

Tax aspects on donations will, most probaly in many countries, call for 
donations to a legally incorporated entity. What is the IETF legal entity I 
am to write on the check and then claim for resulting tax benefits for 
supporting research. No tax controller will buy that ISOC is an R&D lab.
jfc

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:38:22 -0500

>>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <[email-masked]> writes:

    JFC> Tax aspects on donations will, most probaly in many
    JFC> countries, call for donations to a legally incorporated
    JFC> entity. What is the IETF legal entity I am to write on the
    JFC> check and then claim for resulting tax benefits for
    JFC> supporting research. No tax controller will buy that ISOC is
    JFC> an R&D lab.  jfc

The IETF is an engineering organization, not a research lab.  Most of
the funding will not go to activities that would traditionally be
described as research.

--Sam

---

From: "Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:17:09 +0100

At 5:46 AM -0800 12/13/04, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>are all entirely aligned,

If we look at this as a partnership, I don't understand why not.   If 
one looks at ISOC as only a funding mechanism for the IETF, this 
might seem to be the case.   Our interests should be more aligned 
than simply financially.

>since it would obviously be more

over 80% of ISOC's org. members donate less than $10K annually and 
managing these in a 'restricted accounting manner' requires more 
effort and overhead.  Also, organizations/donors expect recognition 
appropriate to their contribution and that implies differing levels 
of value and distinction.

And, language such as that in the BCP  would require changes to our 
membership programs (reducing our flexibility wrt future program 
development) and consistent with other decisions to remove 
operational detail from the BCP, it seems as though this language 
should be removed as well.

Finally, revamping membership/funding programs should not be done in 
a piecemeal manner and with the model proposed we risk drawing fairly 
arbitrary lines re designating support to the IETF vs. support to 
other ISOC/IETF (technical) education and policy programs.

Lynn

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:37:27 -0800

"Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]> writes:

> one looks at ISOC as only a funding mechanism for the IETF, this might
> seem to be the case.   Our interests should be more aligned than
> simply financially.

I agree with that, but that doesn't mean that our interests
are entirely aligned. Indeed, partnerships are a situation
in which it pays to take particular care to one's contracting
arrangements because the respective point of alignment and
disalignment are less obvious.

> effort and overhead.

What fraction of the aggregate income comes from such donors?

> development) and consistent with other decisions to remove operational
> detail from the BCP, it seems as though this language should be
> removed as well.
>
> Finally, revamping membership/funding programs should not be done in a
> piecemeal manner and with the model proposed we risk drawing fairly

Hmm... It's precisely those lines that I am concerned that we should
draw. 

-Ekr

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:23:02 +0100

>the funding will not go to activities that would traditionally be

I am afraid this is not exact for two reasons. (1) I target by what is not 
covered by the "most" (2) this is US nexus, each country has its own laws. 
The point is not to dispute the international environment but to know the 
name on the check.
jfc

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:09:56 -0500

>>>>> "Lynn" == Lynn St Amour <[email-masked]> writes:

    Lynn> over 80% of ISOC's org. members donate less than $10K
    Lynn> annually and managing these in a 'restricted accounting
    Lynn> manner' requires more effort and overhead.  Also,
    Lynn> organizations/donors expect recognition appropriate to their
    Lynn> contribution and that implies differing levels of value and
    Lynn> distinction.

The text you are objecting to is added specifically because of IETF
concerns that individuals and smaller donors cannot ear-mark donations
for the IETF under the current ISOC process.  If that is going to
continue to be true it is worth calling out to the IETF community and
confirming they can live with that reality.

--Sam

---

From: "Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:23:38 +0100

>disalignment are less obvious.

agree, hence this discussion :-)

>What fraction of the aggregate income comes from such donors?

of the total org. member dues = on average 10% (not quite the 80/20 
rule but close)

Regards,

Lynn