[Chapter-delegates] Various fundraising stuff (was Re: ISOC's regional engagement)

[Christian de Larrinaga]

thanks for the detailed response Andrew
a few minor observations

Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 03:11:54PM +0100, Christian de Larrinaga via Chapter-delegates wrote:
>>
>>Firstly I do think it is really important that ISOC has broad user buy
>>in and does so globally and that it can show that off.
>>
>>So the fact that other incomes are not growing sufficiently is a worry
>>that no doubt is being worked on.
>
> Yes.  But I also think that we have a history in which even our own
> members are sceptical that we need contributions, however small.  I am
> acutely aware that there are lots of members of the Internet Society
> who are in no position to give us anything.  But I am equally aware
> that we have members who certainly could make a small contribution,
> and don't.  That's harmful to us.
>

As an aside the local uk chapter hasn't developed "org" memberships or
sponsorships other than for very specific activities or an event as
those ISOC org members who are local contribute to ISOC for IETF and
tend not to be vested in general open Internet policy preferring to
lobby directly for their own business / org interests.

Plus

We don't currently charge individual membership as there has been no
mechanism to keep the process low friction administratively and satisfy ISOC membership
rules and systems since 2001 ish when we last charged for local membership. 


>>But does this US 501.3 c rule require that PIR have to only fund another US
>>based 501.3c or could the community form regional "ISOCs" with
>>charitable purposes and allow PIR to spread the load so to speak?
>
> It's actually way more complicated than that.
>
> PIR is a supporting organization of the Internet Society.  Supporting
> organizations and supported organizations are another fascinating part
> of US not-for-profit tax law that I never imagined I would know
> anything about!  One feature of a supporting organization is that it
> does not have an independent public support test obligation on its own
> (so this is the case for PIR and also true of the Internet Society
> Foundation).  _But_, to be free of that obligation, the supporting
> organizations are much more tightly constrained in what they are
> permitted to fund.  There are rules around what is a permissible
> beneficiary.  It would be possible to construct a strategy along the
> lines you mention, I imagine, but it might not help as much as desired
> because of the possible constraints on such organizations. (This is,
> in effect, one of the wrinkles in the way the Foundation works.)
>
>>Is PIR funding ISOC that then funds the ISOC Foundation?
>>Or is PIR funding ISOC and separately the ISOC Foundation?
>
> PIR contributes directly to the Internet Society and to the
> Foundation, but this is permissible precisely because the Foundation
> is a supporting organization of the Internet Society.
>

A useful description but it does sound rather incestuous. That adage
comes to mind that tax policy shouldn't limit one's horizons but the reality is it almost always does. 

>>Lastly - One of the big improvements with what I would expect marketable
>>gains at ISOC in recent years has been the subject matter expertise that
>>ISOC has fostered internally.
>>
>>Are these programs marketed to attract participant / beneficiary income
>>flows ?
>
> Yes, but it is taking time to attract that support.  Also, an _awful_
> lot of what people want is specific expertise on specific things, and
> that makes the engagement not a contribution but a fee for service.

Well that really isn't what ISOC is about. But it is about collecting
support into communities of interest to do things that meet our
principles and through that benefit those engaging in those impacted
operational areas and so there's hopefully an opportunity to charge a
"membership" or sponsorship supplement for joining in as a prominent
force on those activities both globally and potentially involving local
staff in various countries that have chapters as well?

MANRS? v6? GEC? 

> Fee for service arrangements turn into what's called "unrelated
> business income" in our books, and that revenue has two problems.
> First, it does contribute to the overall revenue (and not public
> support), but it is also taxable (whereas charitable contributions are
> not).


What some UK charities I know do is because there are trading
restrictions on the charity itself is to set up trading companies to handle
trading activities which then if they have a surplus donate it to the
charity. But the US connected organisational chain you cite suggests
that probably won't help.


Best regards,
>
> A

thanks C

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga