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 <st(_dot_)amour(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org> 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
> > > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > --
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Reality:
> >      Yours to discover."
> >                                 -- ThinkingCat
> > Leslie Daigle
> > leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf