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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf