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

[CW Mail]

Dear Bob, Dear Dave:

These arguments are not new. I broadly agree with Dave's comments.
I recall commenting in a similar vein three years go, without noticeable effect. (See attached)

Regards

CW









On 17 Nov 2013, at 19:01, Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com> wrote:

> 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, we 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)
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20131117/bd64e1df/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ISOC_Budget_comments2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 104810 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20131117/bd64e1df/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20131117/bd64e1df/attachment-0001.htm>