[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding - IMPORTANT

Wed Mar 16 13:43:55 PDT 2016

Thanks greatly to both Conference Dev and the OSGeo Board for considering
and approving our agreement and our request for an advance as well as your
overall support of our efforts.

Attached to this email is a *signed copy* of the agreement, and a signed
Attachment 1 (i.e., our contract with our PCO). We used the same exact
agreement that Steven sent over as V4 on March 9 (and that version
corrected an inadvertent reference to the Bonn team). For the agreement
itself, both Cindy Delaney (President of Delaney Meeting & Event
Management) and myself have signed (on page 5 of the PDF). Please note that
a second OSGeo signature is needed on the last page of the PDF (page 21) as
our Attachment 1 is the contract between OSGeo and Delaney Meeting & Event
Management (DMEM). Cindy has already signed in both places. Once we receive
the final, Guido will make sure it finds its way to SVN.

Please let us know if you need anything further. Otherwise, we'll await
receipt of a copy that is counter-signed by OSGeo. Anything that can be
done to expedite the return to us would be great as that will enable us to
move out and have DMEM secure our venue.

Many thanks and sincerely,

MT, the BLOC and DMEM

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Venka
>
> Michael will get the signed agreement out to you for counter signature.
>
> As per the agreement the Board needs to appoint a financial representative
> to the 2017 LOC. In the past the board has encouraged a past chair (who was
> a board member) to join the LOC to provide some continuity and experience
> from previous events - this has been an informal arrangement. These two
> roles could be combined.
>
> For 2016 I am fulfilling the joint role with the Bonn LOC.
> ______
> Steven
>
>
> On 16 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Venkatesh Raghavan <venka.osgeo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I am subscribed to the conference list with a different
> e-mail and my earlier mail to this list informing
> about the board approval for 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding
> request did not reach this list.
>
> I forward may earlier mail from my subscribed address.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Board] [OSGeo-Conf] 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding -
> IMPORTANT
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:57:55 +0900
> From: Venkatesh Raghavan <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>
> <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>
> To: Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com> <mgt at appgeo.com>, OSGeo Board
> <board at lists.osgeo.org> <board at lists.osgeo.org>
> CC: conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> Hi Micheal and All,
>
> I am glad to inform that the Board has approved the
> Motion to approve the FOSS4G-2017 Boston agreement &
> seed funding funding request.
>
> Let us know the next steps to be taken from our side to get
> the agreement signed.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
> On 2016/03/15 21:17, Michael Terner wrote:
> > Venka:
> > Thanks for the fair questions and thanks to the board for the serious
> > consideration of our request.
> >
> > Steven, thanks for the general outline of a response and an enumeration of
> > our request. Your four points are entirely accurate and indeed several
> > people guided us to examine the Bonn agreement as a template for an
> > OSGeo/LOC agreement. This is precisely what we did, although in our case,
> > and unlike Bonn, the BLOC is not a legal entity and thus as with some past
> > conferences our PCO is part of the agreement as our "financial agent". So
> > here are a few additional details on the four main points:
> >
> >     1. *Names*: Our agreement has three parties: OSGeo, the Boston Location
> >     Organizing Committee (BLOC) and Delaney Meeting & Event Management, our
> >     PCO, who is acting as our financial agent.
> >     2. *Seed funding*: We are asking for approval of up to maximum of
> >     $70,000 of advances. As per the email threads, we anticipate doing this
> >     through two separate requests. The first would be for $20,000 +/-
> >     immediately following our hoped for approval of the agreement. The second
> >     would be for the remaining $50,000 after the Bonn Conference concludes and
> >     as we begin to ramp up at a faster pace (and as deposits come due).
> >     3. *Additional guarantee*: Again, we followed the Bonn agreement model,
> >     and as Steven points out the "total exposure" for OSGeo between the
> >     advances and additional guarantee are the same for both Boston and Bonn. I
> >     would also observe that the known precedent of OSGeo providing these
> >     guarantees was something we considered strongly in forming our bid. Indeed,
> >     both the BLOC and OSGeo are "in this together" with substantial "skin in
> >     the game" and we are both strongly motivated for a superior and financially
> >     successful event. We will work tirelessly to ensure Boston continues the
> >     FOSS4G streak of being financially successful.
> >     4. *Contractual clauses*: As has happened over the years, we would
> >     certainly urge OSGeo to continue building on the template agreement and
> >     these clauses provide important *mutual *protections as well as
> >     providing a framework for cost-effective dispute resolution in the unlikely
> >     event it is needed. They are standard clauses, but they also articulate
> >     important principles.
> >
> > Last, please consider the BLOC to have a strong +1 to Dirk's suggestion
> > that OSGeo look at an insurance approach for FOSS4G that could be designed
> > to cover future events and could leverage the good financial record of past
> > FOSS4G's. This would be one more thing that the "next conference" (e.g.,
> > 2018) would not have to start from scratch with. Along those lines, we very
> > much appreciate Cameron resuscitating the "Priorities for Conference
> > Committee" thread, and anticipate chiming in over the coming weekend.
> > Indeed, the "starting from scratch" issues are something that are
> > resonating with our team.
> >
> > Please let us know if you have any further questions, or need
> > clarifications on the points made above. We remain very hopeful that we can
> > receive Board approval *this week*. And, we are also hopeful that if we do
> > receive that approval it will be provided with some guidance on "what comes
> > next" in terms of putting signatures on the agreement and formally
> > initiating the financial request for an advance. The signatures part is
> > most important as we continue to face a near term deadline for signing an
> > agreement with our venue that will legally secure the date.
> >
> > Thanks in advance...
> >
> > MT & the BLOC
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Dirk Frigne <dirk.frigne at geosparc.com> <dirk.frigne at geosparc.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you Steven,
> >>
> >> This is a clear statement and an improvement of the contract in relation
> >> to last year in relation to exposed risk.
> >>
> >> i.m.h.o. this should pass the board's decision for this event. If the
> >> board should have still questions about the contract in general, we
> >> should discuss them and formulate an advise for improvement for future
> >> events.
> >> One improvement could be that OSGeo get insured for the extra exposed
> >> risk (for future events), based on the financial history of all the
> >> FOSS4G events in the past.
> >>
> >> Dirk.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 14-03-16 16:39, Steven Feldman wrote:
> >>> Venda, Board
> >>>
> >>> The proposed agreement is identical to the one that OSGeo has entered
> >> into with Bonn for 2016, with the following variations:
> >>> 1. The names
> >>> 2. The seed funding is up to £70,000 not $57.500
> >>> 3. The advance is for up to $45,000 not $57,500 (overall the total
> >> exposure is the same as 2016 at $115,000)
> >>> 4. The insertion of Mitigation, Indemnification and Arbitration clauses
> >> which I understand are standard clauses in US agreements of this type and
> >> apply equally to both parties.
> >>> The additional guarantee is intended to cover the very unlikely
> >> circumstance that the FOSS4G is financially unsuccessful. If the event
> >> loses money OSGeo is at risk of losing our seed money and an additional
> >> $45,000 up to a maximum exposure of $115,000. This agreement limits our
> >> exposure to $115,000 previously we had potentially unlimited exposure.
> >>> I hope this helps the board in considering this motion
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> ______
> >>> Steven
>
>
>
> <Attached Message Part.txt>_______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>

-- 
*Michael Terner*
*Executive Vice President*
617-447-2468 Direct | 617-447-2400 Main
Applied Geographics, Inc.
24 School Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108
www.AppGeo.com

-- 
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or legally 
privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or otherwise 
authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy, distribute, 
disclose or take any action based on the information contained in this 
e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this message and material 
in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete 
this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics, Inc. (AppGeo).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160316/880e8232/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OSGeo + BostonLOC Agreement v4signed.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1172192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160316/880e8232/attachment-0001.pdf>