Re: [Iasa20] Memo exploring options for IASA 2.0 models

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 07:20:40PM -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
> > understand how to earmark funds donated to ISOC for the IETF currently
> > argue that this just allows ISOC to redirect money that _would_ have
> > gone to the IETF to some other activity.
> 
> But that doesn’t really happen, it’s more the opposite.  If the IETF
> goes over the budget it sets for the year, ISOC picks up the
> difference.

I know how this works.  But we are talking to _donors_, not people who
are spending all their time looking at the details of our finances.
Simple consideration, if nothing else, ought to make us want to make
thinking about this psychically unburdensome, and right now people
have to think about the funding model and how we relate to ISOC and so
on.  That has been a consistent complaint of various donor people that
several of us have spoken to, and it has also been something that
people who work in sponsoring corporations have raised in the WG.  If
you are claiming all those people are wrong, the burden of proof is on
you.
 
> I agree, as long as we are willing to deal with the consequences.
> In my view, it will require money to be given a lot more
> consideration that it does in the current model.
 
That is possibly true.

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 07:27:38PM -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
 
> I hope so.  However, I still think this is not the main reason we
> have trouble funding the IETF.

I don't think anyone has argued about what the "main reason" for
trouble funding the IETF is.  I think what people have said is that,
in their efforts in this area, this arrangement is problematic and has
been identified by potential donors as being problematic.  It seems to
me therefore that it is one of the criteria we should use to judge any
new arrangements: will it address this issue?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]