Inline
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf_censored-admin(_at_)vesuvio(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)tilab(_dot_)com
[mailto:ietf_censored-admin(_at_)vesuvio(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)tilab(_dot_)com]On
Behalf Of Leslie
Daigle
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 22:29
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)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 discussing that it "would be easy" in my view to have
people donate for example $10 for a specific project (IETF).
And my discussion was only to try and convince people that it
should not be difficult (and expensive) to do so for reasonable
amounts. But again they are details that I do not need in
the BCP. We have the principles wirtten down I think.
The question is, do we all believe "1/" and "2/" are achievable?
I said yes.
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.
I still believe that current wording is fine and I can support to
remove that one sentence that Lynn wants removed.
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 account.
That has already been done as part of another issue.
Bert
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
_______________________________________________
This message was passed through
ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it, which is a sublist
of
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed. Decisions on
what
to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator
(ietf_admin(_at_)ngnet(_dot_)it).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf