CCANZ Funding Beyond June 2016

A donate page similar to https://donate.creativecommons.org/ would be nice.

A store.

Referal links.

Humble Bundle allows selection of charity - CCANZ isn't listed but Creative Commons is. An example link https://www.humblebundle.com/pc-android-14-bundle?charity=25556.

Update: LINZ will fund CCANZ until the end of December 2016 http://creativecommons.org.nz/2016/07/linz-to-cease-funding-ccanz/

There are a number of ways this could go. Which way we end up going depends a lot on the answer to this question: do we see CC licensing as:
a) well-established enough now in Aotearoa to continue rolling out with only minimal nudging from volunteer advocate/ mentors?
OR
b) still in its infancy (or perhaps a wayward toddlers), and still needing CCANZ to be a formal public service entity, with regular staff, carrying out advocacy and education activities, and helping organisations plan their transition into using CC licenses?

Depending on the answer to this question, CCANZ could:
* survive as an unfunded, volunteer-only, community organisation.
Pros: not dependent on funding.
Cons: limits the scale and speed of what we can achieve, regular fundraising required to cover basic costs (eg website hosting and maintenance).
* crowdfund our baseline operational budget (one year or at a time, or one campaign for 2017/18 funding). CCANZ has been successful in crowdfunding for both temp staff and our print run, and has earned a lot of respect and appreciation among a large network of well-paid kiwis. Could we totally fund ourselves this way?
Pros: if we succeeded, we'd have a mandate from our "crowd" for our work, and independence from institutional funders while still being able to pay staff and bills,
Cons: successful crowdfunding involves a huge amount of promotional work, and if we didn't succeed, it could look and feel like a lack of a mandate from our "crowd" for our work, which could be demoralizing.
* find another single funder to continue with current activities.
Pros: paid staff paid and basic expense covered, only one funder to report to.
Cons: highly dependent on one source of funding which could again be discontinued.
* find a funder for each area of work, ie an education-orientated funder for work relating to OER and CC adoption in schools, an arts funder for work relating to CC adoption in arts and media etc, a GLAM funder for work relating to CC use in GLAM institutions.
Pros: paid staff paid and a range of expenses potentially covered, not critically dependent on any one funder, easier to justify and carry out CC advocacy work across a range of sectors.
Cons: more staff time going into making funding applications, reporting on results, and managing relationships with a range of funders. Having to shoehorn a more complicated mesh of "deliverables" into a unified organisational strategy and work program.

Presuming the answer to my opening question is b), another way forward could be a hybrid of two of the options above; crowdfund for baseline operating costs (staff salaries, office costs, website costs etc), and seek grants on a project-by-project basis. If this worked, we could ask for smaller grants from a larger range of domain-specific funders (both state and philanthropic), because they'd only need to cover project-specific costs. I could see this working better if we could put together a volunteer-run funding team (a subgroup on this Looomio group?), with one person dealing with education-related funding, one for arts and media, one for public service, one for GLAM etc.

Update: InternetNZ will fund CCANZ $50k https://internetnz.nz/blog/internetnz-announces-20162017-strategic-partners-0

We are also very grateful to LIANZA for donating rent-free office space to CCANZ.

Thanks to InternetNZ and LIANZA for their contributions, and congratulations to everyone who worked on setting up these arrangements with them.