wrythings

Via the GIO listserv:

Maine is first state in nation to pass net neutrality resolve

Resolution Recognizes Importance of Nondiscriminatory Access to the Internet

(more…)

While at NetSquared Y2 there was a tension between certain perspectives around profit, narrow-sense sustainability and the non-profit sector. Dave C. shared some links with his fellows in the grassroots and philanthropic sectors, asking for us to get to work on our language and conceptual schema to defend what is in fact different about what we do.

At the NetSquared conference recently, there was a comment made by a venture capitalist that “Some nonprofits just suck”.  This was partially attached to a discussion of nonprofit sustainability models, with a very large portion of participants taking it for granted that “sustainability” meant charging for services. There is an entrenched view that foundation grant funding and other donations can never be “sustainable”, and that there must be a return on services offered that eventually sustains the organization financially.

I responded to much of this. There’s a synopsis on the Nonprofiteer: http://nonprofiteer.typepad.com/the_nonprofiteer/2007/06/dear_nonprofite.html#comment-72142198

(thanks, Nonprofiteer, for the kind words).

The continuing debate lives here: http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2007/05/some_nonprofits.html#comment-71226258

and here: http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2007/06/philanthropic_c.html#comment-72140764

…and other comment threads on the Tactical Philanthropy site and elsewhere.

Coming under fire for offering services for free, by nonprofit funders who do not seem to understand the difference between “mission-driven” and “profit-driven”, forces me to suggest that we, as a sector, need to develop stronger language regarding these issues. Most of all, we need to work towards a different model of sustainability, so that we can pose alternate definitions when a potential funder equates “sustainability” with a system based on marginal returns for services offered. 

So my question is: “How do we measure sustainability if we’re mission-focused (nonprofit) instead of profit-focused (for profit)?”.

And related: “How do we communicate the difference to the venture capitalist, foundation, and other donor communities who we’re hoping will support our work?”.

In both cases, by “we” I mean all of us mailing list denizens, not our organization in particular.

Responses appreciated. Backup on Tactical Phil would be awesome (I think I’m outnumbered).

Dave.

Phil C. took up that flag long ago, but here’s a current link in response to this: Gift Hub: Something Here Certainly Does Suck

The key for me in the framing of these questions is whether one limits one’s view to the organizational boundary as one views each exchange or transmission of value, or whether one holds an ecological perspective on the flows and is able to see a variety of significant flows.

Would I have been happier with a fiddle than a violin?

We’ve got to get wireless policy right. Harold Feld argues well that we have some wrong-headed notions around trespass and theft when it comes to wireless (wifi) connectivity.

Our wireless signal doesn’t stop at the border of our property. It propagates into our neighbor’s space and into the commons. It can limit their ability to use the spectrum in that space. There is a case to be made for public nuisance, but we’re talking about unlicensed spectrum.

What may escape public awareness is a willingness to share. There are enough people sharing and intending to share content and connectivity that we can’t expect the person gaining access through our network to assume we want it closed to outsiders unless we close it ourselves.

That’s Harold’s point. The burden of securing your network should come before any notion of trespass or theft can apply.