[KI-LC] Proposal for Outside Funding for WGs/DGs
John Fraser
john.fraser at mednetworld.com
Fri Feb 26 10:20:59 EST 2010
Brett and Trent,
As a work group that has just approved working with eCitizen Foundation and now needing to raise money, I support adopting your additional language to the Finance Policy.
John Fraser
-----Original Message-----
From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Brett McDowell
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:17 AM
To: J.Trent Adams
Cc: Kantara Leadership Council
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Proposal for Outside Funding for WGs/DGs
In the budget approval process we did actually have a two-step decision process with LC & BoT that I think answers what Bob has raised.
Step 1: Is a proposal a "good thing to do" in light of the Kantara mission and charter? (The LC answers this question)
Step 2: Is this something the Trustees choose to fund in light of all the other proposals they received? (The BoT answers this question)
If the only thing we are after is a way of understanding the process for seeking outside funding for projects, I'd suggest we simply add a 3rd step:
Step 3: Is this something an outside organization is willing to fund? (the WG goes looking for funding independently, coordinating with Kantara staff, and the question is answered by the outside parties being solicited).
The only missing piece seems to be the following policy decision that LC should ask the Trustees to adopt, which is:
"If the LC has approved a project on its merits, and an outside party has agreed to fund the project, the Trustees commit the organization to work with the outside donor to channel that funding through the operations of Kantara and into the WG who proposed the project originally. Kantara will take the same responsibility for the success of the project as if it were fully funded by the Trustees."
This could be a new paragraph added to the Finance Policy.
Does that solve the problem?
-- Brett
On Feb 26, 2010, at 1:59 AM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
>
> Bob -
>
> IMO, we're just looking for a simple, common sense statement the LC and
> BoT agree will work. As others have pointed out, we've already done
> this type of thing a couple times with no apparently deleterious effects.
>
> Perhaps it might help to explore creating something that looks like a
> FAQ entry along the lines of:
>
> -----
> It is understood that some activities undertaken by the Work Groups may
> require more funding to accomplish than Kantara Initiative provides.
> While the WG should try to secure funding directly from Kantara
> Initiative, it is reasonable to assume that the WG may need to approach
> external sources of funding. As the WG activities are taking place
> under the auspices of the Kantara Initiative, the WG leadership agrees
> to work with the LC and BoT as appropriate when seeking external funding.
> -----
>
> While this might not be the exact wording we want to use, if we try to
> define much more than that we're running into the danger of
> over-complicating things at this stage. Basically, my hope is that we
> can get something both the LC and BoT like, and isn't overly burdensome.
>
> It seems to me that a simple statement like this clears this question
> off the deck, and once agreed to as a simple "way we do business", we
> can call this a success and move on.
>
> My $0.02,
> Trent
>
>
> Bob Pinheiro wrote:
>> At the last LC meeting, I agreed to chair an ad hoc "Funding Proposal
>> Committee" to address the question of WG/DG funding from outside
>> sources. Before going too far, I want to share my initial thoughts on
>> this topic with you, and get your feedback and comments.
>>
>> * The rationale for having a process for WGs/DGs to solicit
>> funding outside of formal Kantara budget requests is that such
>> requests appear to be considered in light of: a) available
>> Kantara funds; b) perceived priority of the request as compared
>> to other funding requests; c) constraint that only "volunteers"
>> should be doing the work, unless there is no volunteer and the
>> work is deemed of sufficient priority by Kantara to be funded by
>> sources available to Kantara. When a Kantara budget request
>> is denied because it doesn't satisfy these criteria, the WG/DG
>> should be free to seek funding elsewhere. Brett has pointed out
>> that Kantara does fund projects proposed by WGs, and that
>> "Kantara works with external funding sources as well (ISOC as
>> co-funder of the Information Sharing WG's research projects is
>> one example)." Yet I believe this is only true provided the
>> above constraints are satisfied.
>>
>> * The Chair (or Co-Chairs) of any WG/DG should be able to approach
>> potential funding entities and solicit funds to support the
>> activities of that WG/DG. By "potential funding entities" I
>> mean virtually any entity that might be willing to provide
>> funding to support the activities of a specific WG/DG. These
>> would include Kantara members, organizations that are
>> non-Kantara members who are participating in a particular WG/DG,
>> as well as non-Kantara members who are not participating in the
>> WG/DG. I'd guess that in many cases non-Kantara members would
>> be approached, and if they agreed to provide funding for
>> specific WGs/DGs, they might also be willing to join Kantara at
>> some level.
>>
>> * The specific WG/DG activities that could be funded in this way
>> could include practically any legitimate WG/DG activities that
>> the funder would be willing to support. This would include
>> funds for surveys, market research, development of prototypes or
>> pilot demonstrations, and consultants. Consultants may include
>> WG participants (including Chairs) who are self-employed and
>> whose active participation is deemed to be of sufficient value
>> that financial support would be warranted.
>>
>> * The amount of such funding, and the WG/DG expenses for which the
>> funds would be applied, would be defined by agreement between
>> the individual WG/DG Chair/Co-Chairs and the funding entity.
>>
>> * The funding entity would provide the funds directly to Kantara,
>> under a formal agreement that the funds would be spent by
>> Kantara explicitly to support the specific WG/DG activities as
>> agreed to by the funding entity and the WG Chair. In cases
>> where a non-Kantara member is providing funding, and also
>> desires to join Kantara, it's possible this new member might
>> request that some of its dues be directed specifically to
>> support the WG/DG. That would be an issue that is somewhat
>> outside of this discussion, since we're only focusing here of
>> funds earmarked for specific WGs/DGs.
>>
>> * The Kantara treasurer would disperse the funds according to this
>> agreement.
>>
>> One open question: should WGs/DGs first attempt to secure funding
>> through the Kantara budgeting process, or through supplementary budget
>> requests, or should they be able to directly approach outside
>> sources? On the one hand, it would be unnecessary to seek outside
>> funding if Kantara is willing to provide the funds. On the other
>> hand, going through the Kantara budgeting process may slow things down
>> considerably, especially if the funding request is ultimately denied.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> ---------------------------
>> Bob Pinheiro
>> Chair, Consumer Identity WG
>> 908-654-1939
>> kantara at bobpinheiro.com
>> www.bobpinheiro.com
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>
>
> --
> J. Trent Adams
> =jtrentadams
>
> Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
> Internet Society
> http://www.isoc.org
>
> e) adams at isoc.org
> o) 703-439-2149
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
More information about the LC
mailing list