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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf