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

[Christian de Larrinaga]

Andrew Firstly just so I am being "crystal" as well. I am most certainly not suggesting anything other than
ISOC follows the highest principles for its self governance. 

Your other points I will study in more detail for now, as they deserve
some thinking about. 

thank you for your engagement here.

best Christian

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

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 11:32:46PM +0100, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>>
>>As an aside the local uk chapter hasn't developed "org" memberships or
>>sponsorships […]
>
> To be clear, the operations of chapters and how they raise their funds
> is completely outside of this discussion or these considerations, and
> chapters' funding arrangments have no effect on the Internet Society
> finances.
>
> I think, for what it's worth, that that is a good thing.  There are
> organizations not unlike ours that have a chapter arrangement in which
> each chapter (or otherwise-named local affiliate of some description)
> is required both to raise money and to contribute some of that to the
> "central organization" as part of the consideration of being a local
> organization. This is a model we have not contemplated, it is a model
> I don't think would be consistent with our desire to foster community
> (especially among those who are least able to afford it and who are
> most disadvantaged in terms of network connectivity), and it is a
> model I would personally oppose.  But I want to note it for
> completeness in the course of this discussion.
>
>>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.
>>
>
> I want to be absolutely, totally, crystal clear: there is nothing the
> Internet Society (or any of its supporting organizations) is doing or
> would do under any circumstances, so long as I hold this job, that is
> in any way legally dodgy, strange, or otherwise at odds with the
> Internal Revenue Code of the United States.  We have excellent legal
> counsel, both internal and external.  We have excellent finance staff
> with lots of non-profit experience and excellent auditors.  All of
> these people ensure we are complying with both the law and the
> generally accepted practices within our industry, according to legal
> and accounting norms established by the respective professions.  I am
> not indulging in any financial adventurism and I would not tolerate
> such adventures were I to uncover them.  I have total confidence in
> the staff who work in this area.
>
> Wrapping one's head around the way US non-profit arrangements work
> does indeed take some time and, to an engineering brain, sometimes
> some adaptation.  But the way we operate is entirely in keeping with
> non-profit sector norms with a bias towards conservative estimates so
> that we can be confident that the Internet Society will be here to
> support the thriving of the Internet for decades to come.
>
>>> 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
>
> Yes, exactly so.  But that value proposition takes more time than a
> simple transaction, so we must take that time to attract the
> contributions.  We have unfortunate timing, in that the organization
> was not really ready to make these appeals when money was more
> free-flowing (i.e. prior to 2020), and so we are running into
> headwinds.  But I believe the attacks on the Internet over the past
> year or so give us a rallying point around which we can attract
> supporters.  That takes time, but I believe we are ready to show the
> value we have to offer supporters.
>
>>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?
>
> I must note that we do have many generous sponsors of our activities
> already.  Those of you who have participated in some of our chapter
> activities over the last couple years will note the sponsors we thank
> with some prominence.  Many of the larger events we organize have
> quite significant numbers of sponsors.  We must build on this success,
> for sure, but I don't want anyone to go away with the picture that
> there isn't any support.  We just need it to be deeper and broader.
>
>>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.
>
> Yes, this doesn't work quite the same way in the US.  For an example
> of something similar to what you are talking about, have a look at the
> Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation.  We are already in
> something like that situation, however, with the added advantage that
> PIR is itself a 501(c)(3).
>
> So, what we really need is twofold.  First, we need to diversify our
> revenue (and not just because of the public support test: having all
> your eggs in one basket is always risky).  But second, we just need to
> make our financial resources larger.  As I've noted elsewhere in this
> thread, there are a _lot_ of enemies of the Internet.  Some of them
> are even well-meaning, but they're still going to harm the Internet.
> And we need the resources to take that on.  It means making our
> community bigger and better able to respond to these threats, but it
> also means more staff to help with those responses and more resources
> to mobilize the wider public and to build a movement that really
> understands the Internet is for everyone.
>
> Someone recently asked me, for instance, what the IEEE is doing that
> we're not.  One thing they're doing is bringing in approximately 10x
> as much money as we are.  There's a lot more flexibility when you
> don't have to count your pennies to know whether you can appear at a
> hearing or a UN event or a community meeting or what have you.  I am
> confident this is an achievable goal for us, but it will not happen
> overnight.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A


-- 
Christian de Larrinaga