Re: Issue #737: Section 5.3 - Designated Donations [was RE: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3]
Hi Bert, At 3:40 PM +0100 12/23/04, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Inline -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Leslie Daigle Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 22:29 To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Lynn St.Amour Subject: Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3 Let me try a slightly different cut on the discussion. 1/ I believe the IETF is trying to address the fact we would like to be able to accept support in chunks that are greater than individual meeting fees, and less than $100kUS. IMHO, it's not that the IETF needs to be able to accept donations in *any* size between those, but I have heard people say that they know the person in their company who could write a cheque for $40k, if it will pecifically support the IETF, but there's no way they can get $100k through their budget. My feeling is that we all agree on the above. I have not seen anyone speak up against the principle above. The current text actually does capture that: 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. Lynn wants the last sentence removed. I can sort of see that, because it is a detail and it only explains (I think) why we want the programs to not be unduly restrcitive. What the last sentence may alllude to is that we are thinking about very small size of contributions (I could see individuals wanting to donate like a few tens of dollars a year). And so that is detail, and that indeed needs to be worked out and to be evaluated against possible cost for doing so (as explained somewhat by Lynn). It is probably OK to remove: For the benefit of individuals, smaller organizations and countries with developing economies, ISOC shall maintain programs that allow for designated donations to the IETF. and the text above The ISOC shall create and maintain... covers two items: - ISOC will continue (maintain) the current IETF donor program - ISOC will create (or update) the program to make the program not unduly restrictive. So are we OK on that? from my perspective, this is better. It will be critical to review the document as a whole once things are nearly settled. 2/ I believe we've also heard the IETF say that it wants to be able to clearly identify its collected assets (and, as the flipside, is willing to pay for all of its expenses). This is driven by a lot of factors, but I think the an important one is that the IETF believes it can and should be financially viable. Taking the bad along with the good, we want to be in an environment where we can prove that out empirically. I personally am not sure I want to prove that we (IETF) can and should be financially viable. But I DO want transparency, and as part of thta, I do want to see which donations were tagged and intended for IETF and how they have been allocated/credited to IETF. So my concern has been addressed with the text on transparency. Lynn also stated that we currently see a 90/10 rule in ISOC in that 80% of the donations are under $10K and they bring in some 10% of the all donations (If I understood here posting correctly). If that is the case, then a lower bound of $10K might be fine for explicit tagging. Now ... I have in my mind that the lower limit for tagging is currently $100K. So that seems to be an issue. But if donatins above $10k are only 20% of the (number of) donations, and make up 90% of the money, then allowing tagging of that seems fine. And for me, that seems captured in the ... to make the program not unduly restrictive. text. assuming I'm understanding this correctly :-) this seems fine. snip... Lynn also wanted anotehr sentence removed, namely the 1st sentence of 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
Re: Issue #737: Section 5.3 - Designated Donations [was RE: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3]
in line... Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Inline -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Leslie Daigle Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 22:29 To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Lynn St.Amour Subject: Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3 Let me try a slightly different cut on the discussion. 1/ I believe the IETF is trying to address the fact we would like to be able to accept support in chunks that are greater than individual meeting fees, and less than $100kUS. IMHO, it's not that the IETF needs to be able to accept donations in *any* size between those, but I have heard people say that they know the person in their company who could write a cheque for $40k, if it will pecifically support the IETF, but there's no way they can get $100k through their budget. My feeling is that we all agree on the above. I have not seen anyone speak up against the principle above. The current text actually does capture that: 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. Lynn wants the last sentence removed. I can sort of see that, because it is a detail and it only explains (I think) why we want the programs to not be unduly restrcitive. What the last sentence may alllude to is that we are thinking about very small size of contributions (I could see individuals wanting to donate like a few tens of dollars a year). And so that is detail, and that indeed needs to be worked out and to be evaluated against possible cost for doing so (as explained somewhat by Lynn). It is probably OK to remove: For the benefit of individuals, smaller organizations and countries with developing economies, ISOC shall maintain programs that allow for designated donations to the IETF. and the text above The ISOC shall create and maintain... covers two items: - ISOC will continue (maintain) the current IETF donor program - ISOC will create (or update) the program to make the program not unduly restrictive. So are we OK on that? Yes 2/ I believe we've also heard the IETF say that it wants to be able to clearly identify its collected assets (and, as the flipside, is willing to pay for all of its expenses). This is driven by a lot of factors, but I think the an important one is that the IETF believes it can and should be financially viable. Taking the bad along with the good, we want to be in an environment where we can prove that out empirically. I personally am not sure I want to prove that we (IETF) can and should be financially viable. But I DO want transparency, and as part of thta, I do want to see which donations were tagged and intended for IETF and how they have been allocated/credited to IETF. So my concern has been addressed with the text on transparency. Lynn also stated that we currently see a 90/10 rule in ISOC in that 80% of the donations are under $10K and they bring in some 10% of the all donations (If I understood here posting correctly). If that is the case, then a lower bound of $10K might be fine for explicit tagging. Now ... I have in my mind that the lower limit for tagging is currently $100K. So that seems to be an issue. But if donatins above $10k are only 20% of the (number of) donations, and make up 90% of the money, then allowing tagging of that seems fine. And for me, that seems captured in the ... to make the program not unduly restrictive. text. Exactly 3/ We've heard clear explanations that attracting and managing corporate donations is not a simple task. Specifically, that there are reasons that it's not a simple matter to drop the level of donation necessary for designating donations. I don't believe the BCP needs to have specific text about *how* 1/ and 2/ are achieved. The current text is about how, and perhaps that's why it does not reconcile with 3/. I agree with 1 and 2 (except for focus on proving a finacial independent IETF). I am not sure we really have documented the how. I think we have mostly principle in current text I had been discussing that it would
Issue #737: Section 5.3 - Designated Donations [was RE: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3]
Inline -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Leslie Daigle Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 22:29 To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Lynn St.Amour Subject: Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3 Let me try a slightly different cut on the discussion. 1/ I believe the IETF is trying to address the fact we would like to be able to accept support in chunks that are greater than individual meeting fees, and less than $100kUS. IMHO, it's not that the IETF needs to be able to accept donations in *any* size between those, but I have heard people say that they know the person in their company who could write a cheque for $40k, if it will pecifically support the IETF, but there's no way they can get $100k through their budget. My feeling is that we all agree on the above. I have not seen anyone speak up against the principle above. The current text actually does capture that: 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. Lynn wants the last sentence removed. I can sort of see that, because it is a detail and it only explains (I think) why we want the programs to not be unduly restrcitive. What the last sentence may alllude to is that we are thinking about very small size of contributions (I could see individuals wanting to donate like a few tens of dollars a year). And so that is detail, and that indeed needs to be worked out and to be evaluated against possible cost for doing so (as explained somewhat by Lynn). It is probably OK to remove: For the benefit of individuals, smaller organizations and countries with developing economies, ISOC shall maintain programs that allow for designated donations to the IETF. and the text above The ISOC shall create and maintain... covers two items: - ISOC will continue (maintain) the current IETF donor program - ISOC will create (or update) the program to make the program not unduly restrictive. So are we OK on that? 2/ I believe we've also heard the IETF say that it wants to be able to clearly identify its collected assets (and, as the flipside, is willing to pay for all of its expenses). This is driven by a lot of factors, but I think the an important one is that the IETF believes it can and should be financially viable. Taking the bad along with the good, we want to be in an environment where we can prove that out empirically. I personally am not sure I want to prove that we (IETF) can and should be financially viable. But I DO want transparency, and as part of thta, I do want to see which donations were tagged and intended for IETF and how they have been allocated/credited to IETF. So my concern has been addressed with the text on transparency. Lynn also stated that we currently see a 90/10 rule in ISOC in that 80% of the donations are under $10K and they bring in some 10% of the all donations (If I understood here posting correctly). If that is the case, then a lower bound of $10K might be fine for explicit tagging. Now ... I have in my mind that the lower limit for tagging is currently $100K. So that seems to be an issue. But if donatins above $10k are only 20% of the (number of) donations, and make up 90% of the money, then allowing tagging of that seems fine. And for me, that seems captured in the ... to make the program not unduly restrictive. text. 3/ We've heard clear explanations that attracting and managing corporate donations is not a simple task. Specifically, that there are reasons that it's not a simple matter to drop the level of donation necessary for designating donations. I don't believe the BCP needs to have specific text about *how* 1/ and 2/ are achieved. The current text is about how, and perhaps that's why it does not reconcile with 3/. I agree with 1 and 2 (except for focus on proving a finacial independent IETF). I am not sure we really have documented the how. I think we have mostly principle in current text I had been
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Ted Hardie wrote: At 12:12 PM -0500 12/17/04, Leslie Daigle wrote: Brian, I agree, with respect to the specifics (as I said in my note). However, a principle should be captured. And, to the extent we do not yet (apparently) have general agreement on the principle, we still have work to do. Though, in general, my thinking this morning has been running along the lines of Carl's proposal of capturing the desired outcome with an expression of uncertainty (we would *like* to be able to do X), and a plan of reviewing it for a year (will make effort to implement and report back after a year). I'm not nearly so worried, on that front, about the small donations front, as I am about the overall principles of identifying IETF donations and achieving some model for dependent sustainability. I'd like to chime in my agreement with Leslie here. I think we've been somewhat distracted by the small donations label; I have heard some of the same numbers as Leslie, and they are a range, including some in the 5 figure range. Getting the principle down--that people who want to make a donation to the IETF activity should be able to do so--is the important part. How that gets structured may change over time (costs incurred because of donations to IETF paid from those same funds, an overhead model similar to University research funding, whatever). Getting the principle right is a job we shouldn't put off; it should go into the BCP. Getting the specifics right is an activity we should expect to revisit, not just once but over time. We agree. I thought that the text already made it clear that designated donations were allowed, and all we were debating was how much detail to write down. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Hi Leslie, I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying... I'm not nearly so worried, on that front, about the small donations front, as I am about the overall principles of identifying IETF donations and achieving some model for dependent sustainability. What do you mean by dependent sustainability? One nit: There won't really be IETF donations. All of the fund raising will be done through ISOC, so all of the donations will be ISOC donations. Some of those donations may be designated to a particular ISOC activity (such as the IASA or a particular educational or public policy project), and others will not be designated to a particular activity at all, but will be allocated between ISOC's activities as part of the ISOC budgeting process. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
One nit: There won't really be IETF donations. All of the fund raising will be done through ISOC, so all of the donations will be ISOC donations. Some of those donations may be designated to a particular ISOC activity (such as the IASA or a particular educational or public policy project), and others will not be designated to a particular activity at all, but will be allocated between ISOC's activities as part of the ISOC budgeting process. The current platinum sponsors of ISOC are Afilias Limited, APNIC, ARIN, Microsoft, RIPE NCC, and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). Most of these sponsors, including Microsoft, designate their funds for standard activities. These standard activities are typically IETF related, but they are not necessarily managed through the IETF. The current list includes: RFC Editor, scholarship funding for needy IETF participants to attend meetings, activities of the IAB, IESG, IRTF, special workshops of the IETF, travel for IETF related activities, errors and omissions insurance coverage for IESG, IAB, and Working Group Chairs, communications charges for conference calls of the IAB, IESG, and IRTF. Forcing a particular bank account structure does not appear helpful. What is helpful, on the other hand, is a yearly report explaining how the contributions are actually used. Even large companies like Microsoft don't like signing $100,000 checks without knowing how the money will be spent. -- Christian Huitema ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Well, I'd like to suggest that we should decide not to decide at this time. It is a low-level issue compared to getting the BCP to a point of consensus and keeping to the schedule for creating the IASA. As a survivor of many ISOC Board discussions on such issues, I can tell you we aren't going to converge any time soon - so could we agree to put it aside? That will mean adding a few weasel words in the draft, but that's easy if we agree to disagree, e.g.: Accounting mechanisms for small designated donations will be decided in the light of experience instead of the last sentence of 5.3 para 2. Brian Carl Malamud wrote: Hi Leslie - There's something I'm not quite understanding, and I was wondering if others might share my confusion. I can think of two reasons why taking small targeted donations is bad: 1. It's a pain to administer and account for. 2. It screws up the overall marketing plan in some way (e.g., should a $1 donor get their name on the web page, should bigger sponsors be part of some bundling strategy, etc...). I could understand 1. being a problem if people could designate specifically what they want (e.g., support the newtrk working group). But, if the only designation available is support of the IETF, it is a pretty simple accounting transaction to book all receipts with that designation as Discretionary Funds Used for IASA. It becomes a line-item on the income statement and balance sheet, and becomes one line in the annual tax return under restricted contributions received. If the number becomes high, there are some implications for the public support test the IRS uses, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for the forseeable future. My confusion is whether people think that designating means the donor writes the conditions or whether it simply means support of IASA. If it is the latter, it really isn't that tough to administer. If it is the former, I'd be kicking and screaming if I were Lynn. :)) As to the second reason why one might not do this, my own personal opinion is that if people want to make any size contribution to the IETF and there are no strings attached, we shouldn't be so proud as to say no. Regards, Carl Let me try a slightly different cut on the discussion. 1/ I believe the IETF is trying to address the fact we would like to be able to accept support in chunks that are greater than individual meeting fees, and less than $100kUS. IMHO, it's not that the IETF needs to be able to accept donations in *any* size between those, but I have heard people say that they know the person in their company who could write a cheque for $40k, if it will pecifically support the IETF, but there's no way they can get $100k through their budget. 2/ I believe we've also heard the IETF say that it wants to be able to clearly identify its collected assets (and, as the flipside, is willing to pay for all of its expenses). This is driven by a lot of factors, but I think the an important one is that the IETF believes it can and should be financially viable. Taking the bad along with the good, we want to be in an environment where we can prove that out empirically. 3/ We've heard clear explanations that attracting and managing corporate donations is not a simple task. Specifically, that there are reasons that it's not a simple matter to drop the level of donation necessary for designating donations. I don't believe the BCP needs to have specific text about *how* 1/ and 2/ are achieved. The current text is about how, and perhaps that's why it does not reconcile with 3/. The question is, do we all believe 1/ and 2/ are achievable? If we do have a meeting of the minds that they are, given the constrains in 3/, then what we have is only a wording problem to capture that meeting of the minds. If we do not have such a meeting of the minds, then we should figure out fast whether it's a difference of opinion, or whether 1/ and/or 2/ are not reasonably achievable in any universe. Leslie. Brian E Carpenter wrote: Bert, that does not change the need for the ISOC accountants to generate a separate entry for each case and for the auditors to check each of those entries. It's a real cost, because accountancy and auditing cost real money. Brian Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Inline Biran answered me: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I am not a real accountant and kind of simple-minded. So when you say: Lynn == Lynn St Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I then wonder - if there is s separate or special bank account for IASA/ETF - if I can just deposit my donation into that bank account - What then is the more effort and
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Well, I'd like to suggest that we should decide not to decide at this time. It is a low-level issue compared to getting the BCP to a point of consensus and keeping to the schedule for creating the IASA. As a survivor of many ISOC Board discussions on such issues, I can tell you we aren't going to converge any time soon - so could we agree to put it aside? That will mean adding a few weasel words in the draft, but that's easy if we agree to disagree, e.g.: Accounting mechanisms for small designated donations will be decided in the light of experience instead of the last sentence of 5.3 para 2. Hi Brian - I think you should do what it takes to get a consensus on the doc. :) If that means dropping the language altogether and that makes people happy, that's the answer. If it means leaving it in, but putting in a clause that makes you happy, that works as well. May I make a suggestion? Run the small donations program for 1 year as an experiment (e.g., don't enshrine it as a dedicated principle), charge any costs for administering that program back to the IASA accounts, and then evaluate at the end of the year if it is a worthwhile thing. In terms of BCP language? Something like: The IASA and ISOC shall investigate concrete mechanisms that will allow small contributions designated for use in the IASA and shall report back periodically to the community on such matters. (Or, any language that makes you, Lynn, Scott, Bert, Leslie, and the others who spoke up on this issue happy. IMHO, this shouldn't be a gating issue and folks seem pretty close to agreement. It seems like people are simply arguing over the level at which this mechanism might kick in ... US$1 is clearly too small, US$1m is clearly large enough.) A suggestion? Maybe Leslie and Lynn could talk and propose something in this area? I'm sure I would immediately agree to anything they proposed. Regards, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Brian, I agree, with respect to the specifics (as I said in my note). However, a principle should be captured. And, to the extent we do not yet (apparently) have general agreement on the principle, we still have work to do. Though, in general, my thinking this morning has been running along the lines of Carl's proposal of capturing the desired outcome with an expression of uncertainty (we would *like* to be able to do X), and a plan of reviewing it for a year (will make effort to implement and report back after a year). I'm not nearly so worried, on that front, about the small donations front, as I am about the overall principles of identifying IETF donations and achieving some model for dependent sustainability. Leslie. Brian E Carpenter wrote: Well, I'd like to suggest that we should decide not to decide at this time. It is a low-level issue compared to getting the BCP to a point of consensus and keeping to the schedule for creating the IASA. As a survivor of many ISOC Board discussions on such issues, I can tell you we aren't going to converge any time soon - so could we agree to put it aside? That will mean adding a few weasel words in the draft, but that's easy if we agree to disagree, e.g.: Accounting mechanisms for small designated donations will be decided in the light of experience instead of the last sentence of 5.3 para 2. Brian Carl Malamud wrote: Hi Leslie - There's something I'm not quite understanding, and I was wondering if others might share my confusion. I can think of two reasons why taking small targeted donations is bad: 1. It's a pain to administer and account for. 2. It screws up the overall marketing plan in some way (e.g., should a $1 donor get their name on the web page, should bigger sponsors be part of some bundling strategy, etc...). I could understand 1. being a problem if people could designate specifically what they want (e.g., support the newtrk working group). But, if the only designation available is support of the IETF, it is a pretty simple accounting transaction to book all receipts with that designation as Discretionary Funds Used for IASA. It becomes a line-item on the income statement and balance sheet, and becomes one line in the annual tax return under restricted contributions received. If the number becomes high, there are some implications for the public support test the IRS uses, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for the forseeable future. My confusion is whether people think that designating means the donor writes the conditions or whether it simply means support of IASA. If it is the latter, it really isn't that tough to administer. If it is the former, I'd be kicking and screaming if I were Lynn. :)) As to the second reason why one might not do this, my own personal opinion is that if people want to make any size contribution to the IETF and there are no strings attached, we shouldn't be so proud as to say no. Regards, Carl Let me try a slightly different cut on the discussion. 1/ I believe the IETF is trying to address the fact we would like to be able to accept support in chunks that are greater than individual meeting fees, and less than $100kUS. IMHO, it's not that the IETF needs to be able to accept donations in *any* size between those, but I have heard people say that they know the person in their company who could write a cheque for $40k, if it will pecifically support the IETF, but there's no way they can get $100k through their budget. 2/ I believe we've also heard the IETF say that it wants to be able to clearly identify its collected assets (and, as the flipside, is willing to pay for all of its expenses). This is driven by a lot of factors, but I think the an important one is that the IETF believes it can and should be financially viable. Taking the bad along with the good, we want to be in an environment where we can prove that out empirically. 3/ We've heard clear explanations that attracting and managing corporate donations is not a simple task. Specifically, that there are reasons that it's not a simple matter to drop the level of donation necessary for designating donations. I don't believe the BCP needs to have specific text about *how* 1/ and 2/ are achieved. The current text is about how, and perhaps that's why it does not reconcile with 3/. The question is, do we all believe 1/ and 2/ are achievable? If we do have a meeting of the minds that they are, given the constrains in 3/, then what we have is only a wording problem to capture that meeting of the minds. If we do not have such a meeting of the minds, then we should figure out fast whether it's a difference of opinion, or whether 1/ and/or 2/ are not reasonably achievable in any universe. Leslie. Brian E Carpenter wrote: Bert, that does not change the need for the ISOC accountants to generate a separate entry for each case and for the auditors to check each of those entries. It's a real cost,
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
At 12:12 PM -0500 12/17/04, Leslie Daigle wrote: Brian, I agree, with respect to the specifics (as I said in my note). However, a principle should be captured. And, to the extent we do not yet (apparently) have general agreement on the principle, we still have work to do. Though, in general, my thinking this morning has been running along the lines of Carl's proposal of capturing the desired outcome with an expression of uncertainty (we would *like* to be able to do X), and a plan of reviewing it for a year (will make effort to implement and report back after a year). I'm not nearly so worried, on that front, about the small donations front, as I am about the overall principles of identifying IETF donations and achieving some model for dependent sustainability. I'd like to chime in my agreement with Leslie here. I think we've been somewhat distracted by the small donations label; I have heard some of the same numbers as Leslie, and they are a range, including some in the 5 figure range. Getting the principle down--that people who want to make a donation to the IETF activity should be able to do so--is the important part. How that gets structured may change over time (costs incurred because of donations to IETF paid from those same funds, an overhead model similar to University research funding, whatever). Getting the principle right is a job we shouldn't put off; it should go into the BCP. Getting the specifics right is an activity we should expect to revisit, not just once but over time. regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Let me try a slightly different cut on the discussion. 1/ I believe the IETF is trying to address the fact we would like to be able to accept support in chunks that are greater than individual meeting fees, and less than $100kUS. IMHO, it's not that the IETF needs to be able to accept donations in *any* size between those, but I have heard people say that they know the person in their company who could write a cheque for $40k, if it will pecifically support the IETF, but there's no way they can get $100k through their budget. 2/ I believe we've also heard the IETF say that it wants to be able to clearly identify its collected assets (and, as the flipside, is willing to pay for all of its expenses). This is driven by a lot of factors, but I think the an important one is that the IETF believes it can and should be financially viable. Taking the bad along with the good, we want to be in an environment where we can prove that out empirically. 3/ We've heard clear explanations that attracting and managing corporate donations is not a simple task. Specifically, that there are reasons that it's not a simple matter to drop the level of donation necessary for designating donations. I don't believe the BCP needs to have specific text about *how* 1/ and 2/ are achieved. The current text is about how, and perhaps that's why it does not reconcile with 3/. The question is, do we all believe 1/ and 2/ are achievable? If we do have a meeting of the minds that they are, given the constrains in 3/, then what we have is only a wording problem to capture that meeting of the minds. If we do not have such a meeting of the minds, then we should figure out fast whether it's a difference of opinion, or whether 1/ and/or 2/ are not reasonably achievable in any universe. Leslie. Brian E Carpenter wrote: Bert, that does not change the need for the ISOC accountants to generate a separate entry for each case and for the auditors to check each of those entries. It's a real cost, because accountancy and auditing cost real money. Brian Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Inline Biran answered me: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I am not a real accountant and kind of simple-minded. So when you say: Lynn == Lynn St Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I then wonder - if there is s separate or special bank account for IASA/ETF - if I can just deposit my donation into that bank account - What then is the more effort and overhead ?? I just do not understand. Bert, I'm sure Lynn will answer this too, but from when the ISOC was discussing accounting practices for individual member subscriptions and donations, I remember that the bank account aspect is the least of the worries (and anyway, we already reached consensus not to have a separate bank account). I am not even talking about separate bank account as we did in an early rev of the iasa-bcp doc. I am talking about an ISOC bank account that will ONLY receive donations targeted for a specific purpose. By depositing money on the specific bank account, you IMPLICITLY tell ISOC that the money is intended for a specific purpose, in this case IETF. Again it must be the simple-minded me who does not understand. Bert he issue is that accounting entries have to be made in a very specific way for money which is tied to a specific purpose, and while that is a small overhead if someone donates $100k, it becomes a significant overhead if 100 people donate $1k. It can end up eating money for accounting actions that really serve no useful purpose but have to be done to follow thr accounting rules. So I think Lynn is correct and we have to give ISOC the necessary flexibility. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --- Reality: Yours to discover. -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Hi Leslie - There's something I'm not quite understanding, and I was wondering if others might share my confusion. I can think of two reasons why taking small targeted donations is bad: 1. It's a pain to administer and account for. 2. It screws up the overall marketing plan in some way (e.g., should a $1 donor get their name on the web page, should bigger sponsors be part of some bundling strategy, etc...). I could understand 1. being a problem if people could designate specifically what they want (e.g., support the newtrk working group). But, if the only designation available is support of the IETF, it is a pretty simple accounting transaction to book all receipts with that designation as Discretionary Funds Used for IASA. It becomes a line-item on the income statement and balance sheet, and becomes one line in the annual tax return under restricted contributions received. If the number becomes high, there are some implications for the public support test the IRS uses, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for the forseeable future. My confusion is whether people think that designating means the donor writes the conditions or whether it simply means support of IASA. If it is the latter, it really isn't that tough to administer. If it is the former, I'd be kicking and screaming if I were Lynn. :)) As to the second reason why one might not do this, my own personal opinion is that if people want to make any size contribution to the IETF and there are no strings attached, we shouldn't be so proud as to say no. Regards, Carl Let me try a slightly different cut on the discussion. 1/ I believe the IETF is trying to address the fact we would like to be able to accept support in chunks that are greater than individual meeting fees, and less than $100kUS. IMHO, it's not that the IETF needs to be able to accept donations in *any* size between those, but I have heard people say that they know the person in their company who could write a cheque for $40k, if it will pecifically support the IETF, but there's no way they can get $100k through their budget. 2/ I believe we've also heard the IETF say that it wants to be able to clearly identify its collected assets (and, as the flipside, is willing to pay for all of its expenses). This is driven by a lot of factors, but I think the an important one is that the IETF believes it can and should be financially viable. Taking the bad along with the good, we want to be in an environment where we can prove that out empirically. 3/ We've heard clear explanations that attracting and managing corporate donations is not a simple task. Specifically, that there are reasons that it's not a simple matter to drop the level of donation necessary for designating donations. I don't believe the BCP needs to have specific text about *how* 1/ and 2/ are achieved. The current text is about how, and perhaps that's why it does not reconcile with 3/. The question is, do we all believe 1/ and 2/ are achievable? If we do have a meeting of the minds that they are, given the constrains in 3/, then what we have is only a wording problem to capture that meeting of the minds. If we do not have such a meeting of the minds, then we should figure out fast whether it's a difference of opinion, or whether 1/ and/or 2/ are not reasonably achievable in any universe. Leslie. Brian E Carpenter wrote: Bert, that does not change the need for the ISOC accountants to generate a separate entry for each case and for the auditors to check each of those entries. It's a real cost, because accountancy and auditing cost real money. Brian Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Inline Biran answered me: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I am not a real accountant and kind of simple-minded. So when you say: Lynn == Lynn St Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I then wonder - if there is s separate or special bank account for IASA/ETF - if I can just deposit my donation into that bank account - What then is the more effort and overhead ?? I just do not understand. Bert, I'm sure Lynn will answer this too, but from when the ISOC was discussing accounting practices for individual member subscriptions and donations, I remember that the bank account aspect is the least of the worries (and anyway, we already reached consensus not to have a separate bank account). I am not even talking about separate bank account as we did in an early rev of the iasa-bcp doc. I am talking
RE: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Inline Biran answered me: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I am not a real accountant and kind of simple-minded. So when you say: Lynn == Lynn St Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I then wonder - if there is s separate or special bank account for IASA/ETF - if I can just deposit my donation into that bank account - What then is the more effort and overhead ?? I just do not understand. Bert, I'm sure Lynn will answer this too, but from when the ISOC was discussing accounting practices for individual member subscriptions and donations, I remember that the bank account aspect is the least of the worries (and anyway, we already reached consensus not to have a separate bank account). I am not even talking about separate bank account as we did in an early rev of the iasa-bcp doc. I am talking about an ISOC bank account that will ONLY receive donations targeted for a specific purpose. By depositing money on the specific bank account, you IMPLICITLY tell ISOC that the money is intended for a specific purpose, in this case IETF. Again it must be the simple-minded me who does not understand. Bert he issue is that accounting entries have to be made in a very specific way for money which is tied to a specific purpose, and while that is a small overhead if someone donates $100k, it becomes a significant overhead if 100 people donate $1k. It can end up eating money for accounting actions that really serve no useful purpose but have to be done to follow thr accounting rules. So I think Lynn is correct and we have to give ISOC the necessary flexibility. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Bert, that does not change the need for the ISOC accountants to generate a separate entry for each case and for the auditors to check each of those entries. It's a real cost, because accountancy and auditing cost real money. Brian Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Inline Biran answered me: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I am not a real accountant and kind of simple-minded. So when you say: Lynn == Lynn St Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I then wonder - if there is s separate or special bank account for IASA/ETF - if I can just deposit my donation into that bank account - What then is the more effort and overhead ?? I just do not understand. Bert, I'm sure Lynn will answer this too, but from when the ISOC was discussing accounting practices for individual member subscriptions and donations, I remember that the bank account aspect is the least of the worries (and anyway, we already reached consensus not to have a separate bank account). I am not even talking about separate bank account as we did in an early rev of the iasa-bcp doc. I am talking about an ISOC bank account that will ONLY receive donations targeted for a specific purpose. By depositing money on the specific bank account, you IMPLICITLY tell ISOC that the money is intended for a specific purpose, in this case IETF. Again it must be the simple-minded me who does not understand. Bert he issue is that accounting entries have to be made in a very specific way for money which is tied to a specific purpose, and while that is a small overhead if someone donates $100k, it becomes a significant overhead if 100 people donate $1k. It can end up eating money for accounting actions that really serve no useful purpose but have to be done to follow thr accounting rules. So I think Lynn is correct and we have to give ISOC the necessary flexibility. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I am not a real accountant and kind of simple-minded. So when you say: Lynn == Lynn St Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I then wonder - if there is s separate or special bank account for IASA/ETF - if I can just deposit my donation into that bank account - What then is the more effort and overhead ?? I just do not understand. Bert, I'm sure Lynn will answer this too, but from when the ISOC was discussing accounting practices for individual member subscriptions and donations, I remember that the bank account aspect is the least of the worries (and anyway, we already reached consensus not to have a separate bank account). The issue is that accounting entries have to be made in a very specific way for money which is tied to a specific purpose, and while that is a small overhead if someone donates $100k, it becomes a significant overhead if 100 people donate $1k. It can end up eating money for accounting actions that really serve no useful purpose but have to be done to follow thr accounting rules. So I think Lynn is correct and we have to give ISOC the necessary flexibility. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
I am not a real accountant and kind of simple-minded. So when you say: Lynn == Lynn St Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I then wonder - if there is s separate or special bank account for IASA/ETF - if I can just deposit my donation into that bank account - What then is the more effort and overhead ?? I just do not understand. Bert ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
At 10:37 AM -0800 12/13/04, Eric Rescorla wrote: 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. agree, hence this discussion :-) 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. 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 ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Lynn == Lynn St Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
JFC == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 RD 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 ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
At 5:46 AM -0800 12/13/04, Eric Rescorla wrote: 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, 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 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? 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 ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
At 16:38 13/12/2004, Sam Hartman wrote: JFC == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 RD 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. 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 --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Lynn St.Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. 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 ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
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 RD lab. jfc On 14:46 13/12/2004, Eric Rescorla said: Lynn St.Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. 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 ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
Lynn St.Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 5:46 AM -0800 12/13/04, Eric Rescorla wrote: 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, 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. 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. 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? 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. What fraction of the aggregate income comes from such donors? 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. Hmm... It's precisely those lines that I am concerned that we should draw. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3
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 PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
