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

[Glenn McKnight]

Hi Dave and all
On the fundraising front, Dave makes a good point about  sponsorship from
HQ and  it's equally important  or more important from the chapter front.
Since  I haven't attended any ISOC  inservice/professional training ( I
think this was one of the ideas for the recent IETF in Vancouver)  I am
unclear on how much professional development is available or required by MOU

As  ISOC Canada we are approaching organizations some of which sponsor ISOC
HQ. The problem for chapters is if sponsorship is directed to HQ  the
chapters at worst  ignored or at  best they receive minor event sponsorship.

 Don't know the solution might be but the reality is that if  ICANN and
ISOC want to walk the walk then we really need strong and financially
stable chapters  to the local voice on Internet issues.
Glenn

Glenn McKnight
mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
skype  gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
.


On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 1:01 PM, 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, 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131117/268d76f8/attachment.htm>