[Chapter-delegates] Dear Bob Hinden: The inconvenient truth is that ISOC fundraising is not paying off

[Dave Burstein]

Bob

   I'm writing you as Chairman of ISOC and bcc'ing other board members I've
met over the years.

   When I read the recent ISOC budget I was startled to discover that our
fundraising simply wasn't working very well. *My guess* is that when you
fully allocate the staff time and effort that goes directly and indirectly
to fundraising, w*e actually aren't making any net money.* (Analyzing this
in depth requires confidential information on who is paid how much to do
what as well as donations, something I don't and shouldn't have access to.)

    A board member reached out to me on this, saying "our views align with
many on the Board and will help. We need a change in direction in a lot of
small and big areas…". That persuaded me to write this follow-up letter. A
second board member a while back said to me, "I think ISOC is losing sight
of the mission." I agree, which is why I care. ISOC can be very important
and is worth protecting.

    I therefore think the board should reconsider the entire strategy,
holding off on approving the strategic plan except for practical aspects
that need to be implemented before the next board meeting. It almost
definitely is better for the long run to plan to live within a budget
supported by the $28M from PIR and the modest amount of funds we can raise
without dedicating so many resources.

    It's natural that those inside want to grow the group and expand what
they do, one reason to have a thoughtful outside board. ISOC is fortunate
to have $28M as a base, enough to fund a major presence. I think we will be
far more effective living within that budget then continuing the current
large effort for more funds.

    Raising money requires offering something to the donors. In some cases,
satisfaction in helping a good cause is sufficient. But in telecom policy,
most of the money comes from those with an agenda to support. I've seen
that already influence how ISOC works. Working on an event, I was directed
to "Make sure <the guy from giant company so-and-so> approves." Turns out
they hoped <giant company so-and-so> would sponsor the next event.

   I was horrified when the job posting for the ISOC economist included
experience in fundraising and that raising money would be a required part
of the job. There are $hundreds of millions at stake in issues like the
terms of trade in Africa and Latin America, where giant U.S. and European
companies want free rein although they rarely pay taxes in Africa. "Sender
pays" is anti-consumer in developed countries but *possibly* appropriate in
poor ones. Difficult questions well worth examining closely. *There is
substantial money available for those who support one side of this issue.
An economist whose job depends on raising money will be considered possibly
biased no matter how high his personal integrity.* If we take money from
France Telecom, for example, can we be objective when the African countries
try to force down the charges on FT's international cables, something
Nigerians tell me is important to their Internet cost.

   I've reported about broadband and the Internet since 1999 and I've seen
a corrosive influence of "paid advocates." I've observed closely the
connection between money and politics/policy. I saw it directly before
WCIT/Dubai; a friend of mine, a top economist, told me there was almost
unlimited money for "studies" with the preferred conclusions. (AT&T, Google
and others channeled $millions through David Gross.) So yes, I'm biased,
but I wasn't looking for a problem with fundraising when I read the budget.
I read a lot of financial documents and trained in economics; the
fundraising result stood out like a sore thumb in the numbers.

*   It would be irresponsible to suggest losing revenues without suggesting
corresponding savings.* I believe we are spending so much that the marginal
dollar of funds we collect costs us more than a dollar of effort. Simply
reducing that outlay would cover most of the likely drop. We don't need so
many pr people if the work is strong enough.

   But there are several other obvious cuts possible in ISOC spending. In
Dubai, the expensive ISOC delegation played no public role. Markus Kummer
as a professional diplomat could respond that diplomacy is done best in
private so that's not a fair criticism. But I believe much of ISOC's work
at the conference was in support of positions taken as well by the U.S.
government and major corporations. Google alone had four people on the U.S.
delegation and several on others. Frankly, the U.S. government, Google,
AT&T and France Telecom didn't need $300K ISOC employees to be effective.
They can speak for themselves quite effectively with a less expensive ISOC
presence. Vint and Sally played important roles in the public debate
leading up to the WCIT, a good thing. But the expensive delegation - we
sent a $million in talent - is excessive. ISOC would be at least as well
served at this year's ITU events with one experienced pro and a large
delegation of our members who understand the issues because they are the
people actually building the networks.

   Half the "professional diplomats" from ISOC can be effectively replaced
by "citizen-soldiers." Guided by a diplomatic pro or two, "amateurs" with a
deep understanding of the issues can be far more effective than "diplomats"
with the more Internet experience.  I looked at past board members of ISOC
and saw three or four I know would represent us well. People on the current
board, like Narelle Clark and Bob Hinden himself, could play a similar role
after their board terms expire. Many folks like that would be willing to
spend a week or two a year creating a major ISOC presence at ITU and
similar events. I and other chapter members would be delighted to go if our
expenses were covered; as I did in Dubai when I paid my own way, a cheaper
hotel would be fine or a few of us could share a rented apartment and save
even more. (AirBNB works great, even in Geneva.)

   The savings from using our bext members to represent us - including
current and past board members - would be large. It also would bring ISCO
closer to our proclaimed "multi-stakeholder model." There are also likely
large savings by moving some operations away from high cost Washington and
Geneva. There are certainly people in lower cost countries that can do
tasks like "chapter support." ISOC is currently top heavy with Americans
and Europeans while the majority of the web will soon come from other parts
of the world.

   For the financial health of ISOC, we need to look more to our chapters
around the world and less to DC staffers.

   Growth could be good for us, but the numbers say we are paying too much.
ISOC would be much stronger with we concentrated on spending $28M on our
mission rather than work so hard to get bigger.

db

p.s. I have enough skill with financials I could spin the figures to
convince someone not looking closely either that the fundraising is failing
or actually is quite promising. That means it's impractical to get good
answers at this board meeting even if a financial expert presents. How much
of staff time called "administration" is really dedicated to fundraising?
How many of the current contributions are from bodies believing deeply in
our mission and likely to continue even if we don't have a big fundraising
apparatus? How much would we compromise our mission if we replaced (some)
paid staff at policy events with our most experienced members, willing to
give a week or two a year in return for no more than expenses? I could make
plausible assumptions about any of this that could support either
conclusion about growth and money-seeking.


-- 
Editor, Fast Net News, Net Policy News and A Wireless Cloud
Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley, 2002) and Web Video: Making It
Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit, 2008)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20131117/7c5f53fb/attachment.htm>