RE: [nc-budget] Proposed Jan-June 2003 NC budget

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Bruce, not all constituencies can be measured by the "size" of the membership. But I think that your suggestion to think about association membership needs to be considered in the following light. Companies do pay higher dues to associations who provide specific membership services to them... Companies also join, at lesser fees, groups and coalitions, which represent specific needs or interests. The latter would not generate the same dues which the former would.....

 

Fees should be left to the constituencies; but there is some need to set a threshold of sustainability, and I agree with that. Otherwise, we could have a "sugar daddy" model where a company  or foundation could be asked to "fund" a constituency, and it essentially is a sham operation. Even if innocently so, on the part of the participants.

 

So, there needs to be some degree of self funding. and, no, I don't think that individuals can expect to be subsidized to participate. Individuals fund groups that they care about. They pay in smaller amounts than companies, but they do pay... There might be a provision for  a "kick start" of financial support from a third party  who is truly neutral for the establishment of an infrastructure, but without sustainable contributions by the members, there cannot be a "constituency".

 

That doesn't mean that scholarships to attend meetings are out of order... just that the structure of the constituency needs to be self supporting...

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 8:18 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Philip Sheppard; nc-budget@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-budget] Proposed Jan-June 2003 NC budget

If at all possible I would like the budget committee to agree on a number that it can recommend to the NC for decision.

We don't have time on the NC call to debate the detail.

 

From my personal point of view, constituencies to be viable should be raising at least this level of funding to be viable constituencies in their own right (ie to cover administration, teleconferences etc associated with running any non-profit organisation).  Constituencies should be thinking about the level of funding they need to operate as a whole, and the DNSO fees are just part of their costs.  A focus on DNSO costs will get a constituency nowhere - as it then starts becoming a political argument which usually revolves around whether we should pay anything at all.

 

The total per constituency costs of the DNSO are less than most medium size companies pay other trade associations for membership (e.g it is less than Melbourne IT pays for membership of the Internet Industry Association http://www.iia.net.au in Australia).   A constituency budget might be based on say 50 members paying $500 each, or 500 members paying $50 each.

 

Regards,

Bruce

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:05 AM
To: Philip Sheppard; nc-budget@dnso.org
Cc: Bruce Tonkin Regs
Subject: RE: [nc-budget] Proposed Jan-June 2003 NC budget

I support Philip's recommendations. It is clear that the constituencies will have difficulties in raising funding, and this is a much more achievable objective. Philip, thanks for doing this extra work!

 

Can other constituency reps comment?

 

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 8:44 AM
To: nc-budget@dnso.org
Cc: Bruce Tonkin Regs
Subject: [nc-budget] Proposed Jan-June 2003 NC budget

Budget Committee,

Time pressures meant that all voting members of the Budget Committee left before the end of the November 20 call, leaving Roger in the uncomfortable position of no one else to vote on the budget! Unfortunately, also the idea agreed to earlier in the call, to adjust the reserves in light of the end of the DNSO and a six month budget was not done. The Budget was left at something over USD 9000 per constituency for six months - ie 25% up on last year pro-rata. This seems unachievable, given our payments history.

 

Please see attached a revised proposal for your consideration. I have checked with Glen and got a new conservative figure for the reserves expected at the end of 2002 (USD 25,000). The assumption of the budget is:

-  Six months costs based on 2002 actuals provided by Glen.

- (As in 2002, Indicate but do not budget for task force telephone conferences - they continue to be sponsored until July 2003).

- Deduct the USD 25, 000 surplus cash in hand.

- ADD a cash-flow contingency of USD 10,000 to cover any late payment by up to 2 constituencies.

 

The net result is a call per constituency of USD 4950 per constituency.

I hope you can support this. The figure is conservative and I believe achievable to collect. Please indicate to Roger and the Budget Committee if you support this.

 

Philip