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 be
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
