Subject: Consensus? #737 Section 5.3 Designated donations

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:50:29 +0100

The section on donations in version -03 says (skipping the editors' notes):

5.3  Designated Donations, Monetary and In-Kind

   Donations are an essential component of funding.  The IASA undertakes
   no direct fund-raising activities.  This establishes a practice of
   separating IETF administrative and standards activities from
   fund-raising activities, and helps ensure that no undue influence may
   be ascribed to those from whom funds are raised.

   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.

   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 accounts.

In the discussion on this subject, Lynn St. Amour raised the issue that the 
words on "designated donations" were, in her words, "unnecessarily 
restrictive and too proscriptive; and will significantly reduce needed 
flexibility".
This was interpreted by some as saying "there should be no donations that 
are designated solely for IETF support".

There has been strong pushback against this from other people; people have 
pointed out that one such program already exists (the platinum membership).
I also went over this in some detail in my "finances note".
The discussion made clear that people are not strongly wedded to any 
particular *size* limit for the designated donations; people have said that 
the 100K/year commitment level is "very high", but fully accept that any 
such program will have to be able to pay for its own overhead.

I think there is IETF consensus that we want designated donations to exist, 
as they do today. This principle needs to go in - and indeed, it is touched 
upon in other places in the BCP.

But I do not see the need to put much restriction on the way it is set up.
Suggested modification to the middle paragraph:

   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.
   ISOC shall maintain programs that allow for designated donations to
   support the work of the IETF.

The "not unduly restrictive" part should take care of the "I want to give 
ten dollars" issue. And I reworded the last sentence to make it match the 
first one, and not cause red herrings about whether the IETF exists as 
someone who can hold money (it doesn't).

Does this make sense to people?

                          Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:11:20 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> In the discussion on this subject, Lynn St. Amour raised the issue that 
> the words on "designated donations" were, in her words, "unnecessarily 
> This was interpreted by some as saying "there should be no donations 
> that are designated solely for IETF support".
> 
> There has been strong pushback against this from other people; people 
> have pointed out that one such program already exists (the platinum 
> membership).
> particular *size* limit for the designated donations; people have said 
> that the 100K/year commitment level is "very high", but fully accept 
> that any such program will have to be able to pay for its own overhead.
> 
> I think there is IETF consensus that we want designated donations to 
> exist, as they do today. This principle needs to go in - and indeed, it 
> is touched upon in other places in the BCP.
> 
> The "not unduly restrictive" part should take care of the "I want to 
> give ten dollars" issue. And I reworded the last sentence to make it 
> match the first one, and not cause red herrings about whether the IETF 
> exists as someone who can hold money (it doesn't).
> 

I think so (Lynn needs to agree of course).

    Brian