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.amour@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf