[KI-LC] WG/DG Funding Discussion
Cahill, Conor P
conor.p.cahill at intel.com
Wed Feb 3 16:46:54 EST 2010
I think when a WG is going around actively raising money, that WG is getting close to being a new organization.
Kantara *does* have a funding model that *is* based on membership fees and which can, if I remember correctly, include directed membership funds. Kantara also allows (has no restrictions against) allowing companies to provide in-kind support for a working group (providing a bridge for calls, providing people to do work, etc.).
I'm not convinced that we also need or want a model where working groups are going out asking for funding (probably from the same companies that Kantara would be wanting to be members of the organization). I'm also worried that this somehow is being used to hide how a company actually is spending its own money (e.g. Joe Schmoe at MyCompany.Org wants to pay for consulting services from a particular provider for some WG, but his company has a restriction that requires consulting $$ to be spent at a particular provider that Joe doesn't want to make use of, so Joe tells his company that he's going to contribute the money to Kantara who then directs it to the consultant that Joe wants to hire).
I would like to see some real examples where a WG requires funding that a) isn't being provided by Kantara and b) wouldn't be satisfied by the in-kind contribution model.
Conor
From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Bob Pinheiro
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:09 PM
To: lc at kantarainitiative.org
Subject: [KI-LC] WG/DG Funding Discussion
In response to a request from Trent, I'm starting this new thread under the subject WG/DG Funding Discussion. My original post, together with the replies so far, are below. Please reply to this thread with any additional comments and discussion.
------------------------------------------------------
One difference I see between the OASIS model and the Kantara situation is that the OASIS Member Section Supporting Entities (corresponding to WG participants?) are apparently dues-paying members of OASIS, whereas WG/DG participants are not necessarily dues-paying members of Kantara. So in the OASIS case, redirecting these member dues to support a specific Member Section (corresponding to a specific WG/DG?) means less funding for other OASIS activities. Hence the need for an analysis of the financial impact of doing this, etc. Further, the OASIS Member Section must apparently have funding coming from several sources. That does not now apply to Kantara WGs/DGs. So I'm not sure how relevant the OASIS model is. I'm specifically proposing that WGs/DGs should be able to solicit additional funding from anyone (participant organizations, other Kantara members, governmental entities, Bill Gates/Warren Buffet, or any other entity), and that any funds raised in this way be specifically earmarked for use by that WG/DG in accordance with any agreement between the WG/DG and the funding entity for how the funds are to be used.
It's OK if the funding goes through the Kantara treasurer, and is then doled out to the specific WG/DG, provided that the Kantara treasurer cannot divert such funds for other "higher priority" purposes. I would also expect that Kantara might take a small (emphasis on small) chunk of these funds to support administrative functions.
In response to Conor's concern about doing "what's right" for Kantara as a whole, versus what's right for a specific WG/DG, I'd argue that it's in Kantara's best interest to see all of its WGs/DGs be successful. So to the extent that additional funding is needed to enable a WG/DG to be successful, and this funding can be raised from outside sources, that is in Kantara's best interest.
Bob
On 2/3/2010 2:48 PM, Colin Wallis wrote:
Further to discussion re this on this morning's call, here is an excerpt from the process used by our friends in Billericia..
(f) The funding model (if any) for the Member Section - Member Sections optionally may propose in their ROP that a portion of dues paid by Member Section Supporting Entities be available as Member Section Funds. The uses and expenditures of such funds must be in accordance with the rules prescribed in this Policy. If dues allocation is proposed for this Member Section, the proposers of the Member Section must provide a budget and work with OASIS Staff to create an analysis of the financial impact of dues allocation on the OASIS general fund in advance of the OASIS Board's approval of the ROP, in order to help the OASIS Board make an informed decision. Further, the Member Section must have an approved annual budget that shows how Member Section Funds collected from all sources are used to further Member Section goals.
Member Section Funds come from a variety of sources such as:
a percentage of the income from OASIS membership dues paid by the Member Section Supporting Entities, allocated over the term of the membership;
a percentage of the income from OASIS sponsorship fees for sponsoring the Member Section website, allocated over the term of the membership;
grants of funds from OASIS Members or other funding sources for work that is in alignment with the scope of that Member Section;
revenue from events conducted by the Member Section; and
(in the case of acquisition of another organization by OASIS) any funds it may have previously held as a separate organization.
In those Member Sections that accept dues allocations, Member Section Supporting Entities will have a portion of their OASIS Membership dues allocated to the Member Section as described above.
Food for thought?
Cheers
Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org> [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Conor P
Sent: Thursday, 4 February 2010 5:53 a.m.
To: Bob Pinheiro
Cc: Roger Sullivan; lc at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:lc at kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Telecon Reminder - February 3 at 17:00 UTC
I still think we have to walk a very fine line here between doing what's right for the organization as a whole and doing what's right for a particular group. I can see a lot of potential (real and perceived) conflict of interest when *Kantara* representatives (members of a Kantara group) try to raise money in the name of Kantara, but for a particular group within Kantara.
Conor
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Pinheiro [mailto:kantara at bobpinheiro.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:03 AM
To: Cahill, Conor P
Cc: Roger Sullivan; joe at switchbook.com<mailto:joe at switchbook.com>; lc at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:lc at kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Telecon Reminder - February 3 at 17:00 UTC
I'm not suggesting that the funding not go through the Kantara
treasurer, only that the funding be specifically earmarked for the WG
that raised it, and spent in accordance with whatever agreement is
necessary between the funder and the WG.
Bob
On 2/3/2010 10:50 AM, Cahill, Conor P wrote:
I think that in-kind donations of materials/sponsorship (e.g. paying for a conference booth) and such is fine.
I have a real problem when cash is provided to a Kantara entity and that same cash does not go through our treasurer. I believe that many others had similar concerns.
Conor
-----Original Message-----
From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org> [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Roger Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:46 AM
To: joe at switchbook.com<mailto:joe at switchbook.com>; Bob Pinheiro
Cc: lc at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:lc at kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Telecon Reminder - February 3 at 17:00 UTC
I would encourage this discussion to flesh out the policies - especially with regard to (in)appropriate solicitation and application of funds received.
This type of project/program funding was explicitly talked about during the formation of Kantara. It was not resolved at that time, but simply tabled for later. I'm glad that 'later' is now.
Regards,
Roger S.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Andrieu [mailto:joe at switchbook.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:32 AM
To: Bob Pinheiro
Cc: lc at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:lc at kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Telecon Reminder - February 3 at 17:00 UTC
Bob,
I asked about this at the DIDW meetings and was told quite explicitly
that there is no reason a WG can't raise funds, either from activities
or through sponsorship.
However, I agree it would be good to have some guidance and policy as to
how that would work and what kinds of fundraising are not appropriate
and how one would seek approval if the appropriateness is in question.
-j
On 2/3/2010 6:57 AM, Bob Pinheiro wrote:
AOB: I'd like to put on the table for discussion the issue of funding
for individual WGs/DGs. Right now, each WG/DG must depend on the
Kantara organization for funding. Yet the amount of funding available
to a given WG/DG is subject to a number of constraints, among those
being: (a) overall availability of funds, (b) requirement that the work
must be done by volunteer participants, unless no volunteers are
available and the work is deemed by the LC/BoT to be of sufficient
importance/priority to merit funding. Part of the issue here is that
volunteer participants will only be able to contribute their time and
expertise if their employer deems it in the employer's interest to do
so. Of course there are instances where dedicated volunteers may
contribute their own time to WG activities, but that is the exception
rather than the rule. It is also true that many participants who join
the various WGs do so with the intent of being observers rather than
active participants.
The end result is that the activities that can be realistically pursued
by WGs/DGs are limited by the availability of volunteer participants as
well as limitations on funding to seek other resources to help do the
work This situation will likely become more acute as the number of
WGs/DG increases.
I believe that WGs/DGs ought to be able to seek funding for their
activities directly from Kantara members, or other organizations outside
of Kantara (including governmental entities), and that this funding
should be earmarked specifically for the WG/DG to be spent as deemed
appropriate by the Chair, with approval from the funders. I'm not aware
that Kantara presently has a policy to allow this to happen. I'm
proposing that such a policy be developed.
Now I'm not under any illusions here that the existence of such a policy
would suddenly result in funds being available to the Consumer Identity
WG. There is still the issue of going out and soliciting funding,
demonstrating to potential funders the value of the proposed work, as
well as the challenge of demonstrating why the work should be done under
the Kantara umbrella. And of course the potential funders themselves
will have their own budget constraints.
But I'd like to see Kantara come up with a policy on this. So I'm bring
up this issue now, and proposing that the LC recommend to the BoT that
it develop a policy on WG/DG funding from non-Kantara sources. This may
be a topic that should be more fully discussed at the F2F meeting in March.
Bob
---------------------------
Bob Pinheiro
Chair, Consumer Identity WG
908-654-1939
kantara at bobpinheiro.com<mailto:kantara at bobpinheiro.com>
www.bobpinheiro.com<http://www.bobpinheiro.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20100203/c7deebd7/attachment-0001.html
More information about the LC
mailing list