1


--------------------------------------------x
UNION SQUARE VENTURES
SESSIONS EVENT:
HACKING PHILANTHROPY
--------------------------------------------x
                   September 25, 2007
                   11:30 a.m.

                   Columbia University
                   Italian Academy
                   1161 Amsterdam Avenue
                   New York, New York






           ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
    Certified Court Reporters & Videographers
          575 Madison Avenue, Suite 1006
             New York, New York 10022
                  (212) 868-1936
          www.rosenbergandassociates.com
         
                                                            2

A P P E A R A N C E S:
  
BRAD BURNHAM
SCOTT HEIFERMAN
CHARLES BEST
LESLIE CRUTCHIELD
GRAHAM HILL
JOHN JOHNSON
MEGAN CASEY
AMI DAR
JONATHAN SOROS
SAUL GRIFFITH
TOM REIS
CRAIG NEWMARK
BRIAN TRELSTAD
SEBASTIAN TRAEGER
TOM COHEN
SUSHMITA GHOSH
FRED WILSON
ANIL DASH
TOM WATSON
KEN GROUF
CASANDRA RYAN
JONAH PERETTI
BOB YOUNG
DAVID GALIEL
JEFFREY WALKER
DICK COSTOLO
RAY CHAMBERS
JEFF WEINER
PETER SEMMELHACK
PREMAL SHAH
JAMIE DAVES
VICKI SAUNDERS
PHIL CUTTER
ALBERT WENGER
MARTY KEARNS
JASON KNIGHT
TERRY KELLOG
VICTORIA VRANA
JAY GODSALL
JASEN PAEZ
ANDREW PARKER
ANDREW RASIEJ
MERRILL BROWN
JOHN GOLDSTEIN
SCOTT ANDERSON

                                                            3

A P P E A R A N C E S (CONT.):
  
MARVIN VARSAVSKY
MICAH SIFREY


ROBERT M. LEVINE,
Court Reporter
 
                                                            4

            MR. BURNHAM:  It is going to be
important to be able to have everybody kind
of quiet down because we're not going to use
mics.  And we want to make sure that
everybody can be heard.  So it's also going
to be important for people for speak up.
            So, I suppose I should introduce
myself.  I'm Brad Burnham.  I'm one of the
partners at Union Square Ventures.  Thank you
all for coming.  This is the third of these
sessions, events that we've done.  We did one
at Pier Productions, which I think you'll
find is related to the conversations we had
today.  We did one on technology and public
policy which again is related to the
conversation we had today.
            Today we want to talk about, the
title of this session today is Hacking
Philanthropy, which we have Jeff who
introduced me to the term.  There is an
asterisk next to hacking for those of you who
aren't from the tech community.  It's meant
as a term of respect.  It's something that is
great to talk about.  Of being a very
                                                            5

insightful way of solving a very difficult
problem with great efficiency.  And that's
the way we want to talk about technology
philanthropy today.
            The first and the most important,
this is a conversation.  There are no
presentations.  Nobody is going to make a
speech or sit on a panel.  Every one of you
is, I hope, going to contribute to the
conversation.  And what we've done in the
past is we've had these conversations.
            We've put the conversations up on
the Web as a transcript.  And Robert over
here is transcribing.  In order for him to be
able to deal with this, I know he's probably
going to be tearing his hair out because
there's a large number of people, he's trying
to get everybody's name.  We would like the
transcription to reflect everyone's
contributions as accurately as possible.
Again, speak clearly and a little bit slowly.
If we can all give the speaker the courtesy
of trying to remain quiet so we can pick that
up, that would be great.
                                                            6

            So because we're going to put the
transcript on the Web, please don't break any
corporate stories.  This is not meant to be,
you know, it will not be secret.  So make
your contribution with the understanding that
it will go up on the Web.
            So, how is this day going to be
organized.  First of all, when we put
together this conversation we wanted to talk
about, you know, what we understood to be
happening in the world of technology and how
it might have an impact on social action and
philanthropy.
            And we know that there's a lot of
great work going on in the area of politics.
And you know, Scott, the founder of Meetup
came to light early on in the Dean campaign
and runs The Personal Democracy Forum.  And
there's a great conversation already going on
out there about the relationship between
technology and politics.  And so we wanted to
focus, instead, on just the relationship, the
opportunity with technology and specifically
with Web technologies and philanthropy.  And
                                                            7

what we think of as positive social action.
            There are a couple of reasons for
that.  It's the fact that that conversation
which haven't heard as loudly, but also
because we're capitalists.  We're venture
capitalists, but we're capitalists.  We
believe in markets.  And we believe that
there's an opportunity within markets to do
something really creative in the philanthropy
space.
            As a starting point, what I'd
like to do is have everybody quickly go
around, introduce themselves.  We did put up
bios on the Web.  Not all of those bios were
complete.  We just put up what we could find.
So I'm sure that there's more to tell for
most of you.  Like to do it is as quickly as
we can because just think about the number of
people around the table.  A minute each.
Because we're going to be halfway to lunch or
most of the way to lunch.  So I'd like to try
to just keep it very brief.
            After we do the intros, we have
structured the day with a conversation
                                                            8

initially about the nature of lightweight Web
services.  What they are.  How they work.
What engine drives them.  Where the
efficiencies come from.  And, again, we're
coming from the dot-com side.  That's our
experience.  And the opportunity I hear today
is to think about how they might create some
value in the dot-org side.
            Then we're going to break for
lunch.  We have a special treat for lunch.
Maya Lin has agreed to come in and present the
latest and I guess last memorial that she's
going to work on.  It's titled, "Missing."
It's a reminder that technology can have an
impact on positive social change.  Art can
also have an impact on positive social
change.  And she describes what she's doing.
You'll see that there's also a convergence
between art and technology in what she's
trying to do.  And I think that will be fun.
            After lunch we want to come back
and talk about exactly how to apply some of
the things that we're learning in Web
services to the not for profit and the
                                                            9

philanthropic side, market the opportunity.
            Then we want to talk a little bit
about the constraints.  Not everyone in the
world has a computer.  How do we solve
problems in situations where there's not an
infrastructure.  How do we take advantage of
the limited infrastructure that exists.  How
do we get leverage out of the limited
infrastructures.
            And, finally, we want to wrap up
with kind of a brainstorming session about
what the world would look like five, ten
years out.  If we believe that there's not
only a more integrated use of technology, but
also an accelerated convergence of the
dot-com and the dot-org world.  And we'll, I
hope, talk a little bit about that today.
            Hope that everybody will be able
to keep their cell phones off while we're
around the table.  If you do need to take a
call or to step out, do that.  If you need
anything from Dorsey over here, you know,
transportation, or if you'd like her to hold
your phones, receive a call for you or
                                                           10

something, please just do that.  Bathrooms if
you haven't already found them are all the
way downstairs.  This stairway.  And that's
it.
            Let's go ahead and get started
with introductions.  My quick introduction is
Brad Burnham.  Partner, Union Square
Ventures.  Early stage venture fund focused
on Web services that have the potential to
change the structure of markets.
            Let's go to Scott.
            MR. HEIFERMAN:  All right.  Hi
everyone.  I'm Scott Heiferman.  As he said
I'm the CEO of Meetup.  I'm in Year 5 of a
20-year project.  Have been involved in local
community groups everywhere about most
everything that forms the 21st Century,
multi-chapter organization that exists.
            MR. BEST:  Charles Best from
DonorsChoose.org which is a website where
public school teachers can be social
entrepeneurs and any citizen can be a
philanthropist.  Essentially, a site, a
philanthropic eBay where teachers post
                                                           11

classroom projects that need funding and
donors choose one that they want to support.
            MR. HILL:  Graham Hill.  Most
recent project, founded Treehugger.com
which I sold a month ago to Discovery.  Work
with them for a while.
            MR. JOHNSON:  John Johnson.
Founded EyeBeam.org, a nonprofit.  An arts and
technology nonprofit.  Co-founder of Bees
Feed.  And just recently started a
philanthropic foundation, civic foundation
which is funding innovation in art and the
environment and social justice.
            MS. CASEY:  Megan Casey with
Squidoo.  Basically what Blue does is we make it
easy and free for people to spread the word
about something that we care about, blogging.
It's a lighter weight structure for them to
rip on things that they care about.  Things
that they want to get the word out about.
And while it's free to set up, they do earn
royalties from various ways of participation.
And we encourage them at every stop of the
way to donate to some of our partner
                                                           12

nonprofits.
            MR. DAR:  Ami Dar.  I run
Idealist.org.  It's a global nonprofit.  It
matches nonprofits with people all over the
world who want to work with them, volunteer
with them.  We've been doing this since '91.
Note the gray they're.
            MR. GRIFFITH:  Saul Griffith,
technology guy.  I write science education
books for children.  I work in projects and
spy glasses, building the supplies on laptop
and working.
            MR. REIS:  Good morning.  Tom
Reis.  I'm the director of innovation and
design to the Kellogg Foundation.  Kellogg
Foundation is one of the old mainstay large
foundations in this country that has
potential for becoming a dinosaur.  And my
job is to make sure that doesn't happen.
            MR. TRELSTAD:  Brian Trelstad.
I'm the chief investment officer of Acumen
Fund, a social investment fund that invests
in Southeast Asia and East Africa.  Was on
the founding team of a Web 2.0 called Get
                                                           13

Active which does management for nonprofits.
            MR. TRAEGER:  Sebastian Traeger.
I'm heading up a venture called Razoo.com.
We're a social network around social good.
And our goal is to act straight and encourage
people by making our tools easy and fun and
meaningful to get people involved.  So that's
what we're doing.
            MR. COHEN:  Tom Cohen, PTC
Advisors.  I focus mainly on helping
entrepeneurs get financing for early stage
companies.
            MR. WILSON:  I'm Fred Wilson.
I'm Brad's partner.  And really enthusiastic
about this particular subject.  Because it's
been something that's near and dear to my
heart for a long time.  And I think there's a
lot of good stuff happening.
            MR. WATSON:  Tom Watson.  I'm
co-founder of Changing Our World, a
philanthropic services company.  I also
publish a website called OnPhilanthropy.com
which covers philanthropy.  And I work
particularly a lot in sort of the confluence
                                                           14

of media technology philanthropy.  And how
not for profits can adapt and adopt media and
networks, both to raise money and also to
raise friends.
            MR. GROUF:  I'm Ken Grouf.  I'm
the co-founder of the iNew York which is an
Americore program which gives young people
between the ages of 17 and 24 a chance to do
a year of full-time community service.
Before that I spent six years as a director
at Yahoo.
            MR. PERETTI:  I'm Jonah Peretti.
I'm the co-founder of BuzzFeed which is the
platform for amplifying online buzz, helping
people find interesting things.  And also
co-founder of the HuffingtonPost, a news and
opinion site.
            MR. YOUNG:  I'm Bob Young.  I'm
better known as the co-founder of RedHat and
formerly CEO.  After I left Red Hat I did
philanthropy for a couple of years.  And I
learned everything I didn't want to know
about philanthropy.  So I went back to work.
And being an Adam Smith disciple, I'm
                                                           15

convinced that the businesses I'm building
will create more value than the philanthropic
project I was involved in.  And I'm
interested in you guys convincing me
otherwise.
            MR. GALIEL:  I'm David Galiel,
executive director of Public Entertainment
Corporation or PiCorp.  And we're a nonprofit
digital entertainment studio.  And my goal is
to prove that fun is socially constructive
and not mutually exclusive.  And that
educational and high production values are
not mutually exclusive terms.  And I also
consult with federal, state, local agencies
on adopting lightweight Web applications.
            MR. COSTOLO:  Dick Costolo.  I
was the co-founder and CEO of FeedBurner, a
media distribution platform and a former
Union Square Venture reality port.
            MR. WALKER:  Jeff Walker.  I
started JPMorgan Partners now called CCMP
Capital.  Heavily involved in nonprofits,
particularly one we started seven years ago
called Empower.  It does back-office support
                                                           16

and programing for nonprofits.  We have 450
here in the city.  And we've just gone
national for the city.
            MR. CHAMBERS:  With the
Amelior Foundation.
            MR. WEINER:  Jeff Weiner,
executive vice president of Yahoo.  In that
position I oversee all of Yahoo's consumer
base products.  In addition to the fact that
Yahoo is a tremendous platform to support
some of the efforts here, also have a
personal interest in helping out in improving
the education system.
            And have had a great honor to be
able to work closely with Charles on some of
the DonorsChoose stuff.  And a little bit
with Ray on some of the stuff impacting all
this stuff.
            MR. SEMMELHACK:  CEO of
Bug Labs which is a USV portfolio
company.  We are building a consumer
electronics platform that will allow
virtually anybody to assemble whatever
electronic gadget they want.  Kind of like
                                                           17

Legos.  For enabling all kinds of communities
to explore new types of devices and
applications.
            MR. SHAH:  I'm Premal Shah.  I'm
with Kiva.org which is a relatively new
website that let's anyone with an Internet
connection and a credit card make a micro
loan to someone in the developing world.  We
just crossed about 120,000 Internet lenders.
Made loans to entrepeneurs in about 40
countries.  Growing quite fast.  There's a
lot of risk on the platform as well.
            MR. DAVES:  Jaime Daves is a
partners firm in New York.  Focused on the
media and entertainment scenarios.  Also a
co-founder of a philanthropic forum called
Full Circle Fund which is basically the area.
It's terrific to see so many national service
alumni here.  It's a transition to that.
            MS. SAUNDERS:  I'm Vicki Saunders
from ImpactaNation.  And five weeks away from
launching another company called Sing, a for
profit, which is a shared platform for social
forces to track and aggregate the mechanics,
                                                           18

skinable by any organization.
            MR. CUTTER:  I'm Phil Cutter.
And I apologize for the cell phone.  I've
shut it off.  It won't happen again.
            I'm the chairman of the board of
directors of Goldhirsh Foundation.  In the past
three years we've moved more into the social
entreneurship area.  I'm here to learn.
            MR. WENGER:  Albert Wenger.  I'm
an early stage investor.  I've been involved
in some Web 2 which are lightweight Web
services.  I'm also an investor on the board
of Etsy which is an onboard market based.
            MR. KEARNS:  I'm Marty Kearns.
I'm a founder of NetTreeCentric companies.
We apply network to social changes and
advocacy efforts.  Our current project is
Media.org which is using mass distributed
volunteers to do research, develop a database
of media databases.
            MR. KNIGHT:  I'm Jason Knight,
co-founder and CEO of Wesabe which is a Union
Square portfolio company.  We're a service
that helps our members make better decisions
                                                           19

with their money.  So they upload all of
their financial data.  And then in a pier
produced manner, share where people can get
more value.
            The one thing I guess I'd like to
take away from this is I'd be interested in
the thinking of the people in this room on
ways that people could spend their money and
get more value and do more social good.
That's something we'll be very interested in.
            MR. KELLOG:  Terry Kellog.  I run
an organization called One Percent For The
Planet.  It's a movement and getting more
funding into the environmental world from
companies that commit at least 1 percent of
their revenues to causes.  It was co-founded
by Patagonia.  And we currently have more
than 700 member companies in 25 different
countries around the world.
            MS. VRANA:  I'm Victoria Vrana.
I'm with Venture Philanthropy Passion.  And
we bring over 50 investor families together
to invest philanthropically in great
nonprofit leaders in the D.C. region to help
                                                           20

them make their organization stronger and
have a greater impact on their communities.
            MR. GODSALL:  I'm Jay Godsall.
We're venture capitalists.  We recently
created a technology Pathogen.  So my focus
is try to get pretty expensive stuff into
slums.  So we're developing a social
initiative to try to figure out places that
are very rich in pathogens, but not very much
in money.
            MR. PAEZ:  My name is Jasen Paez.
I'm founder and CEO 4APurpose.  We're a
technology media company focused on what we
see, a burgeoning zone throughout the
country; particularly young people.
            We have two primary projects
we're focused on right now.  One is called
Party4APurpose.com which is an effort to
create a single free platform for every
event, charity purpose of any kind anywhere
in the world.
            And we're also working, we're
creators of a couple of different shows
starting to make their rounds in Hollywood to
                                                           21

bring charitable lifestyles, purposeful
lifestyles, and the fun of engagement and
support which you care about to television
more aggressively.
            MR. PARKER:  I'm Andrew Parker.
I'm an analyst at Union Square Ventures.  I
also previously worked as a developer on an
open source platform for online deliberation
commonly used for organizing social action.
            MR. RASIEJ:  I'm Andrew Rasiej.
I'm the founder of Mouse which is a nonprofit
I started here in Silicon Valley ten years
ago that focuses on training students to be
the network administrators in
repairing/fixing their computers in inner
schools.  Now in a hundred schools in New
York.  About to expand to 300.  We're also in
eight states and 20 countries around the
world.  95 percent of the kids in our program
graduate and go to college.
            I'm also the founder of Personal
Democracy.  Follow politics and technology
and a pending website called Tech President
which focuses on how presidential candidates
                                                           22

are using the Web and how the Web is using
them.
            And, lastly, I'm the senior
technology advisor for the Sunlight
Foundation which is a foundation started two
years ago in Washington that's focused on
putting massive amounts of government data
online so that Americans can parse it, to
mash it, smash it, and keep their, hold their
members of Congress accountable.
            MR. BROWN:  I'm Merrill Brown.
I'm a digital media executive and now
consultant.  I was the founder of NBC.com.
Today I run an initiative on the future of
journalism funded by the Carnegie-Knight
Foundation involving Columbia, Berkeley, USC,
Harvard, Northwestern.
            And I'm chairman of the board of
a company called Now Public which wants to be
the largest aggregator in the world.
            And I'm an advisor to Agave, a
company run by two entrepeneurs who want to
use the Web to help empower people to
contribute to social causes.
                                                           23

            MR. GOLDSTEIN:  My name is John
Goldstein.  I'm with Google.org.  And I'm on
the investment side. (John's opinions are not the opinions of Google.org)
            MR. ANDERSON:  I'm Scott
Anderson.  I'm the newly appointed VP of
global involvement for Ashoka.  And for 15
years I did strategic at the Nature
Conservancy.  And I also write the Green
Skeptic website.
            MR. BURNHAM:  We skipped you,
your introduction.
            MS. CRUTCHFIELD:  I'm so glad to
meet Scott, my new colleague.  I'm Leslie
Crutchfield.  And we're here wearing a couple
of different hats.  I'm the managing director
of a global academy for social
entrepeneurship.  It's a new program where we
elect global great entrepeneurship, such as
Mohammed Unis for scaled impact to great
international levels and holding them up as
incons for the people.
            I also consult with Phil Cutter
of the foundation, helping them to build up
their social entrepeneurship portfolio.
                                                           24

            And I think the reason I'm here
is my good friend Brian Trelstad is helping
me write a book that's coming out next month.
It's called Forces For Good.  The six
practices of my impact nonprofits helped to
develop the methodology which is great for
nonprofits to help us understand how to have
maximum impact through the social sector.
And I'm curious to learn here about how those
social sector leaders and philanthropies can
have impact, do their work.
            MR. BURNHAM:  Well, thank you all
for coming.  We are, I am at least awed and
intimidated by this group.  We've spent a lot
of time at Ventures thinking about leverage
in a very positive sense, technology leverage
in the commercial world.  And we really look
forward to thinking about how it might apply
to the nonprofit world.
            To start the conversation today
what I think I'd like to do is try and get a
sense of what the nature of leverage is on
the Web.  And in the invitation that we sent
out, I pointed to an example of Craigslist.
                                                           25

I do think that Craig will join at one point.
So he'll have a chance to rebutt this.  But
Craigslist is a phenomenal institution.
They are in 450 markets in 150 countries.
They're the seventh largest site in the
English language on the Web.  They have
something -- and I'll get these numbers
wrong -- Craig will correct them.  20 million
uniques.  18 million posts every month.  And
they run this business with 24 people.
            So Craig at one point published
an employee per.  I don't know whether it's
unique user, Jeff, or there was.  And he
compared all of the major important
terminals.  And Craigslist was so far and
away off in their own world.
            And maybe I'll just turn to Scott
because you're also very involved in creating
a highly leveraged business.  And ask you to
comment on how that works.
            MR. HEIFERMAN:  Well, the
keyword, I think.  Thank you for putting me
on platform.  Keyword that we use at Meetup
to describe what we're doing which we realize
                                                           26

is actually about, I think what a lot of the
discussion is the notion of self-organizing,
self-organizing systems.
            You know, I think Craig's great
innovation was just like Pierre's great
innovation about the user rating.  That he
said we didn't have the resources.  We were
too lazy to want to answer everyone's
questions.  We set it up so that people can
rate each other and help each other.
            Craig's system was how things
were flagged.  Means that the system can, you
know, solve problems.  So it's not just
self-organizing.
            The last thing I'll say on this
leverage point is that it's not just the
self-organizing systems on Web's buzzword
people call crowd sourcing.  Meaning like,
you know, people just by doing their own
thing, solve something like flag, a bad post
on Craigslist.  But what I believe is that
what's really fascinating is when people more
consciously self-organize the way they do on
Wikipedia.  And the way, you know,
                                                           27

self-organizing groups have always changed
the world.
            You might think that it's all up
to a charismatic leader of an MLK.  But, in
fact, it's the thousands of small groups
around the country that created the civil
rights movement and the women's rights
movement was about thousands of small groups.
And I don't mean to be plugging my mission
about self-organized groups.  But it is an
engine paradigm.  A general concept of how
leverage, how technology can leverage
self-organized systems emergence and groups
in interesting ways to make.  Because, last
sentence, I promise, self-organized systems
is about decentralization.  So the 20 people
sitting next to Craig's office is a highly
decentralized system.  And so it's thinking
about these mechanisms that in a
noncentralized way is where the leverage
comes from.
            MR. BURNHAM:  I like to stay on
the dot-com.
            MR. HEIFERMAN:  Like the
                                                           28

Internet.
            MR. BURNHAM:  Like to stay on the
dot-com for a while and talk about another
phenomenon.  And that is open source
software.  Going to give Bob a warning that
I'm coming to him.  Bob was involved in the
creation of a business called Red Hat which
commercialized the efforts of some very large
number of people who created in a
self-organizing way, an operating system
which is now used to run a very large portion
of the Web.  And {maybe|may be} Bob has a
better handle on some of society statistics
of what Linux actually does and how it was
created.  And whether we can learn anything
from that mechanism.
            MR. YOUNG:  Actually, yes.  It's
actually not a bad segue.  Because your
comment about Craig and his 20 guys
empowering 20 million unique visitors is very
similar.
            Red Hat started winning.  We won
seven Info World Product Of The Year awards
in a row in server operating systems.  So our
                                                           29

competition was IBM.  It was Sun
Microsystems.  Novell Corporation.  Of
course, Microsoft.  All of whom were
multi-billion a year companies.  And we
started winning these awards when there were
35 of us working in the tobacco fields of
North Carolina.
            So it was positioned by Info
World as a David versus Goliath.  This is
remarkable.  Until you stopped and realized
that it was actually the reverse.  We were
the Goliath.  Because we had more engineers
working on our operating system than even
Microsoft could afford to employ themselves.
            So it was a form of barter
economy.  The engineers contributed to our
operating system because we gave away all of
our code.  They gave way all of their code.
They received a benefit for building Internet
drivers.  We received a benefit from that
Internet driver until we gave them back a
gigabyte worth of multi-user, multi-tasking
operating system with complete source code.
And a license to do whatever you want with
                                                           30

it.  So they saw us as a partner in the
development of these technologies.
            Again, the Internet is the unique
innovation that enabled this to happen.
Without the Internet we couldn't have
harnessed this worldwide group of engineers.
With the Internet it simply is a question of
rethinking how software's developed and what
the incentives are to the engineers who
develop them.
            MR. BURNHAM:  Something that Red
Hat did that in our business we pay a lot of
attention to is they changed the structure of
the operating system market.  They were able
to come after that market with a higher
quality product than could have been produced
by a commercial enterprise.
            And Charles is in the process of
changing the structure of the philanthropy
business, using some of the same
infrastructure and platforms that enabled the
production of Red Hat's product or of
Scott's.  Talk a little bit about that work.
            MR. BEST:  Sure.  Well, I think
                                                           31

the ideas that we push production to the
front end-user in a way that makes them feel
like they are partners with us.  So that
starts with front line classroom teachers
being the ones to come up with the micro
solutions that will most help their students.
            And we actually see that these
teachers come up with ideas that are far more
innovative and creative than any top-down
program would be.  And we turn to those
teachers to help screen and authenticate
proposals submitted by teachers in other
regions.
            We turn to the students who
benefited to describe the impact of the
project rather than having a staff person go
in and record things.  I think in every area
we grab every opportunity to get the front
end-users to do the work.
            And the result is our impact
reports that are far more vivid than an
expert might come up with.  Micro solutions
that are better targeted and more innovative
than the top-down program.
                                                           32

            And then we have donors who do
the labor of choosing which ideas ought to be
brought to life and were built on Red Hat
Linux.
            MR. WILSON:  Fred, you know, what
was interesting to me, listening to this, it
certainly is about the technology.  As Bob
says, you couldn't do it without the
technology.  But it's also about a mindset
that's a fundamentally different mindset.
            Instead of the command and
control mindset where an organization decides
how their services are going to be delivered.
It reminds me of the conflicts that Peter and
Jeff Walker and I were having about Bud Labs.
And the question Jeff was saying, what
devices are you going to make.  And the
answer is we're not going to make any
devices.  We're going to let anybody make a
device.  And the same thing, we're going to
let any teacher conceive of a program.  We're
going to let any group of people create a
community organization.  We're going to let
anybody write an Ethernet driver.  And that's
                                                           33

a mindset that is fundamentally at odds with
the sort of command and control mindset that
most organizations have had for hundreds of
years.
            MR. YOUNG:  Except, isn't it
basically our free market model versus the
Russian, the old Soviet centralized planning
model?
            MR. WILSON:  But I think most
organizations, whether it be the Ford
Foundation or IBM, did not have the global
Internet at their disposal when they were
created to deliver whatever services.  And so
they had to use a different approach.
            MR. YOUNG:  They didn't
internally.  But as a society, all the IBMs
and the GEs and all of those guys put
together did, if you think about it.
            MR. WILSON:  So why didn't -- so
why wasn't this approach -- go back.
            MR. YOUNG:  Because without the
technology, what the Internet is is simply
the first time that everyone on the planet
can talk to everyone else on the planet
                                                           34

without an intermediary.  And that's the
unique innovation of the Internet.
            And so, suddenly, particularly
for philanthropy, you don't have to find the
guy who's already amassed all the wealth and
get him to give you money.  You can with
MoveOn.org type approaches get all the
individuals themselves to fork over their
dollar each and that turns out to be more
money than Bill Gates can come up with.
            MR. BURNHAM:  Bob, you're
touching on something that I think is
important though.  And you said that isn't
this just a market working.  But there's
also, there's work done on the theory of the
firm by this guy (Coase) comes in 1937 which
described the reason why we have economic
units called companies.  Because of the cost
of operating a market within those
communities is greater than the efficiency.
It's more efficient to actually have a
command and control hierarchy within the
community.  And then there's a market that
links those entities together.
                                                           35

            And what's interesting is what I
think is happening now, and what I think
Craigslist shows us and Meetup shows us,
that the Internet is reducing the
transactions costs of organizing markets, to
the standpoint that those communities are
much smaller and much more self-organizing
than they were in 1937.
            MR. YOUNG:  How do you explain
Google?
            MR. BURNHAM:  How do I explain
Google?
            MR. YOUNG:  My argument being
that Google is the guys who are becoming the
Microsoft of the Internet.
            MR. BURNHAM:  Okay.  So why has
Google been -- so you're saying that you
think there is a natural economy of scale on
the Web, as well as the traditional economies
of scale that are more manufacturing.
            MR. YOUNG:  I'm just posing the
question.  I don't have a good answer.
            MR. HEIFERMAN:  I think your
point is right on.  The basic notion of a
                                                           36

free market is self-organized system.  And
that tends to crate some amazing things, like
the Internet or whatever else.  Like
medicines and the good things that's come out
of capitalism.  And that's what's at play.
            The idea of a foundation for
self-organized human activity.  And, you
know, to let the interesting stuff rise up,
that is a good analogy.
            MR. WEINER:  Practically
speaking, one question or challenge I would
pose for the group is how we help in a sense
organize the self-organization of the people
around this table.
            To go back to your point about
scale, I think when you're thinking about
scale, self-organization components that we
talked about earlier are largely based on
community connecting people.  And that's one
part of what makes, in a sense, the staff,
the people around the table participate in it
go.
            I think looking, spending some
time with Charles and DonorsChoose,
                                                           37

understanding that model, I think Charles
would be the first to say fulfillment is the
mechanism by which you fulfill the
match-making.  It's absolutely essential.
            And scaling that, having spent
time in the search industry, you guys were
just talking about Google as well.
Relevancy.  And scaling the ability to make a
match.  You know every time somebody goes
into a query box, whether it's on Charles'
site, whether it's eBay, if those sites are
not producing enough liquidity so people can
find something they're interested in in
donating to, they're not necessarily going to
come back to the site.
            One of the questions I have, to
me, this notion of organization,
decentralized organization,
self-reorganization.  They're not necessarily
mutually exclusive.
            And I think massive scale
benefits, if we can start to help this along,
potentially through some open source.  So
that rather than have a fragmented splintered
                                                           38

approach to this where we have various sites,
and it's amazing to see the firepower
assembled around the table today, imagine if
they were pulling in a similar direction, not
on everything, but on the stuff that helps
make this scale much faster than we could
otherwise imagine.
            So imagine if there was a
commitment to an open source platform for any
kind of marketplace approach, philanthropic
efforts.  So that engineers and developers
from around the world could be contributing
applications to this platform to better
connect people, to better improve the search
relevancy, to improve liquidity.  I think
that would help jump-start a lot of the
things we're talking about.
            MR. DAR:  Two things.  On the one
thing is forgotten now Craig started in '95
in San Francisco.  From '95 to 2000 was one
city.  Made the hockey stick of hockey
sticks.  It was one city.  And to me it was
really personal involvement.  Came to talk to
us in 2000 about launching in New York City.
                                                           39

And I looked at this thing.  And I said this
is never going to work in New York.  You're
not this stupid.  And my lesson from that was
never again say that something is not going
to work.  But I think it's 15 years is a
really long time to experiment something and
to iron out the wrinkles of something.  And
it's a lot of patience.  And I think,
honestly, if you ask Craig, he wasn't
planning on being in foreign cities.  He
launched the thing in San Francisco.  If you
go to the site today, a new user, you still
go to San Francisco which is sort of weird.
They don't have a list of cities.  You land,
first of all, in San Francisco.  It's a San
Francisco site.
            Second thing, I love to listen
more to people here to focus why in 2007 lots
of people, organizations, corporations are
not doing certain things.  It's amazing to me
now watching the national campaigns.  And
there was this incredibly exciting moment in
the summer of '03 where the campaign
basically let loose and open source his
                                                           40

capacity.  A few months you had 20 kind of
bumper stickers.  It was fascinating.  And
today it's back to wraps again.  It kills me.
I don't understand it.
            To watch big corporations today
wasting millions of dollars, paying
advertising campaigns, one advertising
campaign, one advertising agency to design
their ad, when they can go to a thousand
users and offer a $10,000 award for the best
ad.  Why are they still talking to
advertising agencies six years or 15 years
after MoveOn proved that you can use the 'net
to have lots of activity contributed.  And
they still insist on using an old model.
            So I think one of the questions
today is why it's technologies people's
mindsets.  And why we, all of us sometime in
some cases insist on not using what's
available to us, right in front of our faces
in some cases.
            MR. WALKER:  Or how we work
together.  Charles, back to your point and
Jeff was talking about.  Can GE get an
                                                           41

engineer for donor contact and donor
management.  So can we use Charles' model
which is a great model saying I can connect
with teachers and I can correct directly from
the teachers to the donor.  And they're
getting really a very solid connection
feedback to a charity.  They're involved in
it.
            Can we develop an engine rather
than we're doing it ourselves or the guys in
the environment strategy doing theirs.  Can
we develop one engine that we all can use.
And figure out the best, most efficient way
to deliver.
            MR. KEARNS:  There's two things
to pick up on that.  One is from bank
lenders.
            MR. BURNHAM:  Explain who that
is.
            MR. KEARNS:  He's a genius on
network theories with comments at Yale.  He
wrote a book called The Wealth Of Networks.
He wrote a paper called the theory of pure
production.
                                                           42

            But there's one thing that he
says that has just been stuck in my head
since he said it.  And it was that any place
where you can look for network production
where there's excess capacity built into the
basic unit that's produced.
            So information, you know, there's
excess capacity, you can pass it around.
That's why there's all this network
production around information.  But you can
also to do a category.  You buy a car.  And
most people want a car to go from point A to
point B.  But they're sold with three extra
seats.  So where do you need, see network
production.  You see them in the slug lines
of Washington, D.C. or the carpools that just
go and pick up people.
            So anywhere where there's excess
capacity built into the basic unit in the
advocacy world.  It's the members.  They're
in and out, just ATM machines.  They're also
smart and skilled and passionate about
things.  You know, so all the places are ripe
for network production because there's excess
                                                           43

capacity built into the basic note.  You see
it in like CD and the search for
extraterrestrial life.  People using the
excess capacity computers.
            The other thing is I think around
the self-organizing.  And we don't need to
pioneer that.  There's a lot of
self-organizing systems that are kind of
driven by physics and by chemistry.  And
there's real rules on what they need in order
to self-organize.  You can't just throw a
bunch of things on the table and let them
organize.  They have to have a certain amount
of energy.  They have to have feedback
mechanisms which fuel the process.
            And I think if you're looking for
a kind of, you know, that are the structural
guidelines on building self-organizing
philanthropy efforts, you have to look to the
wisdom of those systems and say, you know,
how do we make sure that we're placing the
infrastructure in place so that there is
positive impact.  So there is trust.  So you
can see, in a network view, you can see where
                                                           44

the traffic patterns are.
            When you think about a network
leader versus a boss, a boss in charge of a
firm understands how to deploy resources.  In
networks you have to able to see traffic
patterns.  You have to be able to see trends.
And how are we daylighting those like, Donors
Choose or these other ones, saying, here's a
trend.  And giving the group the ability to
self-organize.
            I think the one that we're most
familiar with is just traffic patterns.
Looking at the traffic maps on the way
there's no central traffic authority that
don't come in 9:00 to 5:00 today.  They just
show you a map.  Traffic jam, it's red.  And
everybody optimizes.  Go around it.  None of
that is detailed in change for advocacy
groups.  And I think that's the real
challenge to us, is to think about back to
philanthropy.  Back to social changes.
            MR. BURNHAM:  One of the things
that, Marty, you're saying requires a
platform that Jeff Weiner or Jeff Walker are
                                                           45

looking for is it's a medidata that will be
produced as people interact with that
platform.  The challenge, I think, in
creating that platform.  And I'm very naive
about the nonprofit side.  But if I just
imagine what the challenge might be, it's
that on the for profit side getting companies
to agree to a common platform that reduces
the entry barriers to participating in a
network or maybe reducing the value of the
network effect that they've already created
because they have a critical mass in that
community, is that they are giving up a
competitive advantage.
            And as much as we like to think,
and I'm again, I'm guessing here, you guys
live in this world.  But my assumption is
that the people who run these organizations
which today have a traditional structure of
aggregating, you know, investors call them
donors and then distributing the proceeds of
that, are going to be very reluctant to give
up the network that they've already created
and contribute that network to a common
                                                           46

platform.  Because they've worked very hard
to own that existing franchise.  How would we
solve that problem.
            MR. YOUNG:  Typically, you don't.
Typically, you replace the existing players
as opposed to re-educating them.  It's the
rare existing organization who can adapt to
the new model.  You typically replace them
all.
            Companies like Hewlett-Packard
who remain relevant over decades are the
exception.  The typical company is Lotus or
Ashton Tate.  Or, you know, anyone suspect
that's going to happen to a lot of the
philanthropic organizations that we know and
love today.
            MR. WATSON:  The problem is
you're not dealing with companies.  You're
dealing with nonprofits that are providing in
a lot of cases social services that aren't
provided by anything else in their
communities.  So it was a common interest in
increasing the philanthropic pot rather than
just replacing what we already have.
                                                           47

            Philanthropy is flat in this
country.  It's been flat for a long time.
It's roughly 2 percent of GDP.  If this open
source movement or scheme could potentially
increase that even 2.5 percent would be a
real motive.
            MR. DASH:  I think to put it in
Marty's term, the excess capacity is
emotional.  Like we talk about the solution
to the problem is technology.  It's not an
open source AP that is missing for making
people more generous.  There are open source
funds in Craigslist, yet nobody has made
another Craigslist.
            I had a chance to talk with Scott
before the meeting started.  And Charles
epitomizes what DonorsChoose.  The emotional
component of why the service was built into
the business plan.  So the reason that we
connect with donors and see what impact our
money had in the classroom is not to improve
our efficiency.  Because it makes us feel
good.  And I think that's the thing that
technology doesn't address.  Almost none of
                                                           48

our tools say we talk about medidata.  You
call it medidata.  That's not medidata.
That's how I feel.  And there's no way to say
that.  This is the friction, right.
            When I replace the old
philanthropy that I had, replace that old
institution, I'm losing an emotional
connection.  And that's why we can't just
simply say this is going to be more
efficient.  It's going to kill the old thing
because with that kills the desire to
contribute.
            MR. BURNHAM:  Let's pick up on
your point and Tom's point and say that if
something like Kiva or something like Donors
Choose reduces the distance between the donor
and the recipient makes the donor feel more
involved than a recipient, then I think it's
very likely to be going to increase the
willingness for people to contribute.
            And so I think it has the
opportunity to increase the size of the pie.
And, you know, I may have an emotional
connection to an institution that I have
                                                           49

built up a lot of confidence in over the
years.  But, frankly, most of the
institutions, I think there is a certain
amount of sin simply around the amount of
time and energy that those institutions must
spend gathering assets.  And if, again, these
new models can reduce the overhead associated
with gathering assets and make people feel
more immediate emotional connection to the
recipients, maybe we will increase the size
of the pie.
            MR. BEST:  Two statistics that
lend themselves toward where we're going is,
number 1, that 70 percent of the donors at
DonorsChoose have never before contributed
to public schools.  It's the first gift that
they've ever made to public education.  And
that's suggestive of how it's increasing the
pie rather than cannibalizing off of other
education focused charities.
            The other stick that really
interested us is that our donors are not
educationcentric people.  We figured when we
surveyed our donors that they were all going
                                                           50

to say I give to DonorsChoose because I care
about public schools and teachers and
education in this country.  They had no
particular interest in education.  They came
to DonorsChoose because it was the one place
that they could choose a project that speaks
to them personally.  See where their money
was going.  Have an emotional connection for
those that they helped.  And it was nothing
specific about education.
            And I don't know if that's the
same with Kiva.  And if the people who make
loans at Kiva aren't micro lending policy
lumps, but are people who want that
correction, I don't know.
            MR. SHAH:  I think 2 percent of
that GDP, only 2 percent of that flows
internationally.  So Americans are pretty
philanthropic.  But it's going to churches
and other organizations.  So the way I view
Kiva, this is almost like kindergarten for
international philanthropy.  The 12th grade
being a Peace Corps volunteer.  How do I put
that kid on a Facebook.  It's 20, $15.  It's
                                                           51

a loan, not a donation.  You can get your
money out of the system.  You're connecting
with that individual.
            Matt designed the lowest
friction, most sort of an addictive
compelling type experience that people are
looking for and get them hooked into that
system.  And then I think you can create that
kind of Howard Dean-style broad base
community support type effort in something
that typically is overlooked by most
Americans.
            So we're seeing that play out.  I
think what's interesting about your point,
the existing organizations.  And will they
move their model or will it be new
organizations like come in and disrupt.  One
of the problems is cannibalization.  So I
expect that people really dig loans.
            There's information there
because when you get repaid you know that
philanthropy is working when you don't get
repaid.  Something didn't go right.  Then you
understand.  And that's what people crave,
                                                           52

feedback.  There's feedback in loans.  And
for a typical organization financing, raising
donations to move to a loan model you're
going to cannibalize their donations that are
coming to your site.
            So I think it's a very tricky
time to actually give away something like 100
percent margin profit of a donation in order
to go to a very low market product like a
loan and facilitate that.  And I think that's
why a lot of folks in the micro finance
industry are struggling with this.  Do we
partner with Kiva on or do we just contend it
doesn't exist and just treat, try to keep
intensify our fund-raising efforts elsewhere.
            MR. BURNHAM:  What's amazing
about that conversation is how familiar it is
to me.  We like being venture capital
investors going up against established
enterprises because it's difficult for them
to cannibalize their existing revenue
streams.  And they often can't do it that way
until they establish something.  I'm not sure
that's a bad thing.  Capitalization has
                                                           53

created a lot of innovation.  And I think it
will hopefully create philanthropy.
            Let me get to Victoria.
            MS. VRANA:  You mentioned
information.  And while I agree in the end
emotion is at the core of philanthropy, we're
seeing more and more donors who care about
data and information and results and
performance.  And I still see a huge gap even
with some of the innovations of the nonprofit
and philanthropic sector of where you can get
good data.  If you're talking about a
marketplace, how do you compare to locally.
15 percent overhead.
            When you look at Charity
Navigators, that gets you a good rating.  In
our perspective that doesn't necessarily make
you a good nonprofit.  That might be a
terrible nonprofit, depending on what you're
doing and what kind of services you're
providing.  So I'm still looking for the
place where users, end-users from nonprofits
can comment on their services.  Where donors,
where there's more transparency and openess.
                                                           54

            And I think back to the question
of about mindset, nonprofits and
philanthropic organizations traditionally
haven't had the need to be transparent and
open and publish their results or talking
about that.  In fact, it's really
counterproductive to both sides.  So I see a
potential for that really changing some of
these new models.
            MR. WILSON:  I think, Brad, the
Web technology, I think about almost any kind
of Web service we interact with.  Google is
Ad Sense is one of my favorites.  Go to
Google Ad Sense and I make an ad buy.  The
thing that's so gratifying to me when I make
that ad buy, everday I can log in, gets
reports to.  How many clicks I have.  What
keywords are performing for which ones
aren't.  I think that's a mindset across a
lot of services today.  Because they're
really data-rich.  And the people that create
these data services understand that.  And
they understand that data is a big piece of
the value component, they gave that data back
                                                           55

for free.
            Google doesn't charge you for
analytics to their ad buy.  You get that for
free.  I'm embarrassed to say I haven't used
DonorsChoose.  But I imagine that's built
into the model.  That people with can
actually get reports and see how their
dollars are generating performance.  And
that's the way to go.
            MR. BURNHAM:  On DonorsChoose,
that is, and Charles has already mentioned
it, that the overhead of producing the
reports that we're envisioning, if you did it
the traditional way where you had a
hierarchical organization that had to approve
the data that's being distributed back to the
donors would be completely -- it would kill,
no way could you make that cost effective.
            But if you're willing to, in your
original point, Fred let go a little bit.
And not completely control the data and allow
the actors at the edge of the network to
actually contribute the data back, then, you
know, you have no incremental costs to
                                                           56

provide that.  In fact, you have less
control.
            MR. KEARNS:  It's got to be data
that you can learn from.  We can all look at
whose success rates, but unless you actually
can see which appeal has a higher open and
click through rate than another, which story
on Kiva really resonates and why, I don't
think -- I mean, you know, we can show lots
of data/information about AIDS and the impact
that AIDS has that doesn't move people off
the dime until they connect to it personally.
            MR. BURNHAM:  And I think that's
a really important point.
            MR. GOLDSTEIN:  Where is Kiva in
the latest generation.  There's a difference
between trying to support donors as we think
they should make decisions and as they
actually do.  Because there's a whole wave of
let's give them metrics and data and support
to them, really drive good decision-making.
So it's not necessary.
            A, we think the pie will increase
if we just get people better information
                                                           57

about nonprofits than the economics will
improve.  There's great idealized sense of
how it works.  And I think this new
pragmatism that philanthropy is more a
consumption experience than an investor
experience, using those tools to help change
the way people really do make decisions.
            So when we talk about the data to
support that, there's feedback to what really
drives responses.  Not necessarily we just
need better outcomes and impact on things
that might be coming.
            MR. HEIFERMAN:  I think having to
play a little bit with DonorsChoose and
Kiva.  It's a game.  And it's fun.  And fun
isn't just in data.
            I personally, you know, am
annoyed by the fact that everything in our
society and culture has to be in the form of
entertainment.  But the idea, but it is very
***gas like.  And the reason why people sue
Facebook is because of the addictiveness.
And you spoke of an addictiveness.  There's a
lot that goes into that.  When you know nerds
                                                           58

like Fred who like data.
            MR. WILSON:  Thank you.
            MR. HEIFERMAN:  Or it's getting
this package you guys should all try.  You
get these packages from these kids and write
you and send you a picture from their
classroom.  But I think it's all about human
needs for this kind of feedback is one thing.
But there's another human need which is very
separate which is the need to believe or
belong.
            And, you know, this whole idea
of, well, it's all about the donors.  And
then the donors give money to those who need
it.  The idea of, I would guess that many of
you are involved in something that you want
to really create a movement.  A true
movement.  A social movement.  Whether that's
an anti-poverty movement or a green movement
or whatever it might be.
            And the idea of how a true
movement happens isn't just about a bunch of
people giving some money.  It's about people
changing their self identity and saying I am
                                                           59

a green advocate or I am this.  And part of
that is money and part of that is a lot of
these kind of systems.  But it's also about
to self-identify.  You have to be involved to
some degree.  And you talk about that
kindergarten to Peace Corp.  What's in
between the kindergarten and the Peace Corps.
And I throw out the challenge of how does the
Internet change people's self identity to say
I am this.
            And because social movements
happen when people, you know, when the
women's sufferage movement was over the
course of 70 years, men decided that women
weren't, you know, they self-identified as
not being as being supportive of the fact
that women should vote.  And so I think we're
at the very baby steps.
            You know, these guys right here
are like true pioneers in this whole what
they're doing.  But there's so much more to
do in saying how do people self-organize,
self-identify, and say that and how I'm -- so
the last thing is limited resource.  Isn't
                                                           60

just cash.  The limited resource is, and
people don't just pay money to have something
be done.  It's a way they can actually give
their time.  Not typical volunteering.
            It's saying when we see at Meet
Up we have 2,000 Meetup groups meeting up
every single day.  2,000 Meetups a day out
of the 30,000 active Meetup groups.  It's
astonishing.  Astonishing where you'll see
the number 1 Meetups are mom's Meetups.
And they have, you tell them here's a tool to
self-organize all the moms in your town.  And
then they adopt a playground.  And they make
their town better or they take on some save
Darfur action of some sort.  We didn't tell
them to do it.  Didn't tell them to do.  No
one's asking them to do it.  About how these
things make that happen is the question.
            MR. WENGER:  One thing I love
about this discussion is that sort of
everybody cease something slightly different.
Somebody likes the data feedback.  Somebody
likes a game.  Somebody likes the emotional
aspect.
                                                           61

            And I think something that we can
learn about, learn from a lot of the systems
successful on the Internet on scale is they
haven't been overdetermined a priori.  It
haven't been too much of a Yahoo case or too
much of a specific way of the seeing the
world composed.  Delicious list, people came
up with 11 Yahoo cases.  And I don't Kiva and
DonorsChoose systems where there's no
political message a priori.  Where many
different types of people can find their own
way of using the system without getting a lot
of posts on them.
            I think that's one of the
beauties of the incentive, is this very thin
layer, just enough to put many people
together without imposing sort of a view so
that somebody gets data because of the
emotional connection.  I think that's a very
powerful thing.  And I think that's also the
flip side, that's what a lot of people are a
afraid of.  But if you built a system that's
not overdetermined, you have a lot of control
over what users ultimately wind up doing.
                                                           62

And I think it's strategic.  That's one of
the critical observations.
            MR. SHAH:  One of the earlier
decisions that we wrestled with at Kiva, if
we looked at our peers online in kind of just
raising grants, you would actually see that
the website was really well designed, perhaps
overproduced.  Very kind of, a lot of great
emotive photos and stories.  And instead, we
went in the Delicious route.  And I was a
little nervous about that.  But we went with
this content on the website.  Looks very
messy.  It is, you know, I think about ***pen
particular, and I think that's what people
look for.  And, in fact, we're trying to make
this even more integrated.  So when the loan
was embezzled, when that loan was used for a
consumption purpose instead of a productive
purpose, that information should be on the
site.  And I think donors or lenders actually
want to see greatness, authenticity.
            They want to see things go wrong
as well.  Then the information when it does
go right, we can construct.  That's what a
                                                           63

lot of these models need to also deliver as
well; the bad news and when it's not working.
And not try to overly produce and package.
            I mean, that's what the Internet
is about to me, is just seeing the bad and
the good.  And then trusting the good when it
does come out.  And being delighted by that.
With Delicious it's just been a great model
for us.
            MR. BROWN:  Yes.  I just wanted
to jump in on a couple of things.
            MR. VARSAVSKY:  One is go back to
the idea of the traditional approach where
decisions are made by big institutions.
            The big IBM model, my former
employer.  One of the largest nonprofits in
the world.  And they pride themselves on
results.  But at the same time spend a lot of
its time trying to decide what the priorities
should be.
            Where this comes into play for
me, about a year ago, I ran into a colleague
of mine on a project in Mongolia.  And she
had the coolest project I had ever heard of.
                                                           64

She was basically wanting to put GPS's into
the hands of local villagers in Mongolia so
they can map the national parklands, sacred
sites, and other places of concern.  And she
couldn't get funding for this project from
the nation.
            How much does it cost?  $15,000.
I said, $15,000 and you're going to put these
units into and basically have these people do
the work, get engaged, be part of this
process locally on the ground and you can't
get funding for this from a service?  She
said, no, we're not a priority in the
organization.  I said, well, this is a
ridiculous system.
            If you can't fund a project like
this, you know, what good are the 900 other
priorities that your organization has.  But
it's a big challenge.  I went back to the
organization.  Why can't you get funding.
$15,000?  Take it out of my 401(k) or
something.  Give it to me.  Just make it
happen.
            And I think the resistance in
                                                           65

putting -- so one step further on that is to
say, okay, what if you had an aggregation of
these projects.  And rather than the
organizations deciding what the priorities
are, you put them out there and let the world
decide.  What should be funded and what
should not.  This is like if the model is
true.  And let that happen.  Well, no, we
can't do that.  We're ceding control over our
priorities.  And what our funding should go
to is important.  So that's a challenge in
the big institutions.
            I don't know how without
dismantling it or deconstructing it you free
the world to decide what should get done and
what should not.
            MR. PAEZ:  Thanks, Brad.  I want
to start with something that Scott said about
the consumption patterns of philanthropy.
And then the questions for dot-org.
            What we see is and what I was
focused on about six months ago when I
started the technology at our site is that,
and this is affected by technology, is how
                                                           66

young people perceive and are interacting
with philanthropy as a consumption, as a
consumer product.  More so than this idea of
simply donating.
            The lifestyle choice.  And it's a
lifestyle pride applications like causes
which has 3-1/2 people on Facebook often worn
by people.  And no money is given.  But it's
like they're closing on the proposal.  I
care.  This is what I care about.  This is
who I am.  This is who I like to connect
with.
            And you see that in data coming
that came out a year ago from Cohen Research
in Boston.  The best I've seen.  89 percent
of Generation Y would reconsider purchasing
where one supports a cause they care about.
80 percent of them feel a personal
responsibility to make the world better
because they feel they're the only generation
that can do it.
            And so what we see in the way
that they interact with information and then
you see that ubiquity of information driven
                                                           67

by technology, they're engaging what they
care about in new and innovative ways and
feel emotionally connected, like Kiva or
DonorsChoose with recipients that they would
never otherwise meet.  But they're used to
emotionally connecting online through data
driven interaction.
            So my question now to Google.org
here is what we see is enormous consumer
patterns emerging from Generation Y being
also mirrored in the media at celebrity
engagement causes, increasingly seen in the
one campaign.  And other increasing cause
marketing trends.  And Google.org coming out
and says, well, we can make a social impact
without being a 501(3)(c) for profit
business.
            We have a lot of for profit
businesses here who are social entrepeneurs
looking to make money and make a difference.
And what I see with my charities, CEOs, Make
A Wish Foundation, Americans Charities, they
see a lot of traditional philanthropy,
traditional 501(3)(c)s being moved into more
                                                           68

market-driven, consumer-driven models
wherever applicable.
            Is that something that MoveOn.org
feels as well?
            MR. BURNHAM:  Do you have a
question?
            MR. GOLDSTEIN:  Yes.  I want to
separate out some of my comments personally.
I personally spent time in the early days of
the global giving for consumption of the
marketplace perspective.  Really gone through
some of what I've done.
            Google.org, its focus, you know,
certainly consciously made access to all the
keys on the keyboard.  Whatever makes the
most sense to solve the problems is, we're
all for problems that Google.org cares about.
It's not saying that afternoon.  These are
all great, important things.  Structural
flexibility are not met with.  I wouldn't say
there is kind of an ideology or philosophy
around some of those things you're focusing
on.
            To be honest, folks on the
                                                           69

dot-com side spent a lot of time on thinking
about these and are infinitely wiser than I
am.  And Google.org may not necessarily fall
in the street business.  So if you think
about the climate, energy, global
development, global health, so it tends to be
focused on those sorts of particulars.
            To be honest, the products and
services that Google may or may not actually
target and may address the future.  So in
some ways your question is better for the
people on the dot-com side than the on the
dot-org side.
            MR. GODSALL:  In the end,
Google.org, what you said in the beginning,
if there's a problem, list a problem,
Solve it.  We want to access the whole
keyboard.
            I'd like to come back to Bob over
there.  Sorry to interrupt you, Bob.  But
when you said to me when any of these ideas
around philanthropy is incentive, you can
unleash a great force if you can identify
that incentive.  And if you could bring us
                                                           70

back to the time when you had the idea and
you knew you had the incentive, therefore,
you knew you were bigger than most,
essentially.
            MR. YOUNG:  Yes.
            MR. GODSALL:  I'll just frame it.
I'm working with Pathogen.  People talk about
viral marketing.  And that's a very limited
way to look at it.  Because there are many,
many ways to infect people.  And you had an
infection that obviously spread very rapidly
like a big outbreak through the engineering
community.  So can you come back to
incentives?
            MR. YOUNG:  Yes.  But this kicks
into the fund question or the emotion
question.  Depends who your audience is and
what their primarily looking for.  If you're
in education it's going to be fun.
            Who's the Latin scholar here?
Apparently there is a word derivative.
Entertainment and education comes from the
same Greek or Latin root word.  So they are
technically entwined.  We tend to learn the
                                                           71

things that we enjoy learning.
            In technology, in Red Hat's case,
the incentive was this barter system.  The
people who were doing most of the
contribution to open source were not
enthusiasts.  These were not emotional
contributors.  These were not entertainment
contributors.  They were people who needed to
use this technology themselves.  But it was
not doing what they needed to do.  So they
made their contribution in order to make
their computers work.  They gave away their
contribution because they're very conscious
of how much technology they were receiving
for free.  So why not contribute back because
it became a self-fulfilling, a barter like
model and their incentive.  And, in fact,
their bosses incentive.
            The reason I actually got
involved in Red Hat, I'll tell you the story,
was I was coming out of my previous career
that crashed and burned.  But that's a long,
sad story.  And I was looking at this open
source thing.  And I was working in the City
                                                           72

of New York's technology field.  And the
engineers I was talking about were telling me
about this free software.  And I'm a good
capitalist, you know, at the end of the day.
Show me the money.
            And I couldn't figure out how
this thing wasn't anything but sort of an odd
idiosyncracy that was only going to survive
in a unique period of time between when the
Intel processor went from the 386 to the 486.
The big difference being a 486 could run a
real operating system.  It could do
multi-tasking.  it could do multi-user.  The
386 couldn't.  It just wasn't powerful
enough.  So you suddenly had 486 processors
everywhere that could run a much more
sophisticated operating system than most DOS,
for those of you who can think back far
enough.
            And so it looked like this whole
Linux thing was just sort of a blip.  Until
Sun and Novell and Microsoft got their act
together and produced a decent operating
system for the 486.  Because afterall, there
                                                           73

was no economic model behind discrete
software.
            You talk to Richard Stahlman and
he would explain to you that was all emotion.
That this is just the right thing to do.  And
being a good capitalist, I said, not a
chance.
            It wasn't until I talked to a
fellow called Dr. Thomas Sterling who was
introduced to by Don Becker who wrote the
Ethernet drivers to the earlier versions of
Linux.  He introduced me to his boss, Thomas
Sterling.  And I asked Sterling straight out,
"Why are you letting Don Becker give away his
Ethernet drivers at Red Hat?"  We were taking
his Ethernet drivers, adding them to our
operating system.  And we were selling our
operating system for 150 bucks in a
shrinkwrap package.
            And I say, "You're not charging
us so much as a penny for your Ethernet
drivers.  Aren't we taking advantage of you?"
And Don Becker's boss, the guy who was
funding Don Becker's work on this because Don
                                                           74

thought he was doing this out of emotion is
it's the right thing to do.  It was Becker
who explained it.  He said, "But let me get
this right.  Don admittedly writes some very
sophisticated Ethernet driver tooling.  He
gives it away for free.  And we might sell it
for $25,000.  But in return for giving it
away I get back a multi-user, a gigabyte
worth, a multi-user, multi-tasking operating
system that I can run on as many machines as
I put my hands on and you're taking advantage
of me?" was his response.
            So it was a barter.  So the point
in an MLS world is who's the beneficiary and
what's their incentive?
            MR. GODSALL:  Work for any idea.
If you can bore down to one problem and you
can identify the incentive there's an
"ah-hah" moment.  Because you have the
incentive.  I think if you don't have the
incentive the problem is philanthropy stays
flat.  I forgot who mentioned it.  But it's 2
percent, right?  So a shift in mindset, as
you said, Fred.  But when you let go, you
                                                           75

have to have this great force out there, has
to have some incentive to give back to you.
            MS. GHOSH:  Except if, maybe, I'm
sorry, if you're a social entrepeneur, your
incentive is to change the world.  So this
makes it actually quite interesting that if
your Ethernet driver, the next Ethernet
driver that you're talking about as a social
entrepeneur.  And the real incentive is
really to have impact in your particular
field or the area that you've chosen.
            Then you actually have built-in
incentive to share your idea.  Not always.
Because you have other people competing and
all of that.  And now the same competition
thing does exist in the social sector, as
much as we think it sort of shouldn't.  Just
speaking from the Ashoka experience.  At
Ashoka we've seen the identity creation that
Scott was talking about of the social
entrepeneur that was there.  But then where
we are right now is we figure that all the
knowledge that's come from this network and
community of social entrepeneurs worldwide is
                                                           76

really a magnet, individual magnet,
collectively, a magnet.
            When you begin to start thinking
through, well, how are all of these pieces,
how do these pieces act together, add up for
each after each one of the fields that we're
looking at.  And once you set up that magnet,
then you say this isn't the ultimate wisdom.
Basically anyone around the world can who
wishes to self-identify as Changemakers, come
here and prove this.  And, in fact, this is
the line thing.  Crash and burn this and
improve it.
            So this is the approach that
we're now trying to, trying out with
Changemakers.net where we're actually
organizing online collaborative competitions
every three months.  And it's the only place
that you'll find on the Web where all the
entrants go off into some black hole after
which some judgment is made.  But it's all
open.  People compete.  Everyone else can see
or the competitors can see.  The world can
see.  Everyone can improve and review.  And
                                                           77

the consent of what comes in.
            And the whole point is
participation is key.  Not because of only
the money, because the awards are just
$5,000, which isn't really as much.  The
judges are investors.  So that helps.  That's
sort of a practical reason for field building
investors.  So there's a reason for that.
But really participation helps you improve
the idea.  And puts it out there for everyone
else to come and improve your individual and
collective ideas.
            MR. WILSON:  John wanted to get a
thought in.
            MR. JOHNSON:  Just really
quickly.  I think what's underlying that and
what's underlying this incentive question
that hasn't been brought up yet is this idea
of social capital.  And that's really, you
know, I think we're talking about leverage
points in the Internet.  That's right up in
the top 5.  But, you know, I think there's a
problem in that we're bringing this kind of
binary Adam Smith perspective.  You know,
                                                           78

either selfish or selfless.  Selfish being a
kind of fiscal selfishness, or selfless being
absence of fiscal intent to this perspective.
And now I think we've got to chuck that.
And, you know, just understand that there's
this new spectrum.
            We see, I think from all the
people that are going through the website
that's offering certain messier information,
I think that those are social capitalists in
a lot of these in Facebook.  Social
capitalists looking for inefficiencies.
That's where Alpha is from social capital
perspective.
            MR. BURNHAM:  Right.  I think
that, you know, I agree with you.  And I like
debating Bob because I think, you know, I
think we're actually talking about the same
thing.  But I believe that social
capitalists, as you say, or reputation is
becoming a currency that people care more
about.  More liquid information is, the more
global information is, the more they care
about that currency.
                                                           79

            And I think Becker cared a lot
about the reputation that he was creating,
about the quality of the code that he was
contributing.  And within the community of
peers that he cared about, they respected and
understood that that was his contribution.
And one of the keys to Linux's success was
that it was apparent where that good code
came from.  And I think that we're going to
see that is played up.
            MR. YOUNG:  But that still
doesn't excuse you from prioritizing those.
So you're right.
            In Becker's case it was very
emotional, his contribution to it.  And it
was reputation based.  In his boss' case it
was very financially based.  It was a barter
system.  Having said that, if you just asked
around the Linux world, they would have all
told you it was emotionally based.  This is
the right thing to do.  When the reality was
it was actually primarily financially based.
            And this is what we have to do as
executives in our teams is if we get these
                                                           80

wrong, if your customers say it's A -- you
know, what's the expression?  The old
expression is the customer's always right.
The truth is the customer is not always
right.  But he is always the customer.  And
it's needs versus wants.  The customer will
tell you what he wants.  It may not be what
he needs.  And it's your job to figure out
what your donors or your recipients or
whoever your audience is, what they actually
need.  Not what we're telling you they need.
Because if you're doing your job properly you
know what they need better than they do.
            MR. WILSON:  Brad, I just wanted
to tell a story because I think it's related
to this.
            Back about three years ago I
decided to put Google's assets on my Web log.
And I didn't do it because I wanted to make
the money from Google.  I did it because I
wanted to understand how Google Ad Sense
worked as a publisher using it.  So I made
the decision the day I put on there that I
was going to give all the money I got from
                                                           81

advertising to charity.
            And the minute I did that, it
just changed people's perspective about the
blog.  Who I was and the ads on the blog.
Because all of a sudden they said, gee,
that's actually a good idea.  He's giving his
money to charity.  And I've given probably
$100,000 over the past three years to charity
as a result.  Not all from Google.  But there
are a various number of things.  Given to the
Gramene Foundation.  That's where I started.
And then I've moved over time.
            And the interesting thing is that
advertisers now come and bid against each
other to get display on my blog.  But
charities cannot come and bid for those
dollars.  And I'd love for that to happen.
            And what's a tragedy is that I
actually have to pay taxes on that income and
then give it away.  Because the systems that
exist on the Web today can't just flow those
dollars from advertiser to charity.  And so I
have to sit in the middle and pay taxes on
it.
                                                           82

            It's not that big of a deal.  I
don't mind it.  But this is where technology
can solve a lot of problems.  And, you know,
we're already getting, we got marketplace
economies now for advertising.  We don't yet
have marketplace economies for the
philanthropy world.  And that I think part of
what we're thinking about here is how to make
that happen.
            MR. WEINER:  Just to pick up on
that.  As important as we all understand
incentives to be, whether they be social or
economic, particularly in community
environments, I always go back within this
world for providing people with a way, I
think there's a lot of people who want to
make a difference in the world and they just
don't know how.
            And I think one of the
fundamental things that's changing, that's
going to continue to change the ease with
which people can now help and get involved.
And that's why I go back to this notion, as
Jeff mentioned earlier, a commonly shared
                                                           83

engine or a commonly shared platform.
            Because we can do that.  We can
start to take even more friction out of the
system.  And keep in mind, you know, I think
we're asking a lot of great questions here.
There's a lot of different constituencies.
Bob referred to it as different customers.
            We've got developers and
engineers.  We have the social entrepeneur.
We have the people who want to donate their
money or their time.  And each one of them
brings something different.  Each one of them
will be missed differently.  Each one of them
finds certain objections that prevents them
from doing the things they want to do.
            And I think we do have the
wherewithal now to try to address and solve
each of those challenges.  But I can't forget
or I always keep coming back to this notion
of is there a mechanism to scale the efforts
in some of the people in their companies
around this table and become what you
mentioned earlier.
            I think Albert suggested
                                                           84

Delicious introduced this somewhat unique
notion pertaining to social bookmarking of a
very simple lightweight app.  A lot of people
come and customize their own apps.  A social
bookmarking.  You start to unstructure the
front end versus the back end.  The front end
sounds like it's a lot more like Craigslist
which is, in your parlance, I guess, highly
authentic and gritty.  That's part of, one of
the reasons for its success.  But it's the
back end where I feel like some of the effort
between you and Charles and some of the other
folks around the table.  If we can facilitate
the means with which engineers and developers
can start to build apps for your site and
build apps for Charles' site.  And build apps
for Charles site is similar to the people who
took the Delicious code coming up with
things, as brilliant as you guys are, you
couldn't conceive of.  And you just start,
offer massive scale, the rate of development.
            MR. WALKER:  Just a bundle.
We've done it in Empower, Microsoft,
Accenture, Dell.  Because you're not putting
                                                           85

in a leverage tool, all of a sudden they see
it.  We got it.  I think if we set up these
engines we can go get it and everybody can
use it.
            MR. BURNHAM:  Folks, it is now a
quarter of 1:00.  We're sort of 15 minutes
behind.  And I don't know what's for lunch.
But it's hot or it was hot at 12:30.  We
should probably get up there and grab lunch.
            We have a lot of time this
afternoon to pick up on this question of
could we envision a way to create a platform.
and I think when we come back down let's
certainly make a point of wrapping up the
discussion on what the key drivers are, what
the emotional component is, what the
incentives are.  And then launch into a
further discussion of what do we do now.
Thank you again for coming.  And let's all
move upstairs.
            (Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., a
luncheon recess commenced.)
                 o0o
                                                   86

2                    AFTERNOON SESS
3                        2:15 p.m.
4                      MR. BURNHAM:  So let's go ahead
and get started.  I think we'll have people
sit down as they grab their coffee or get
back to the room.
            Just trying to think about the
summary of the conversation this morning.
 That what we wanted to accomplish in the
 conversation this morning we accomplished it
 through agreeing.  We also introduced a bunch
of other ideas to think about what the
implications of what light Web services were.
What the characteristics of those services
were.
            We used Craigslist of an
example of a hyperefficient lightweight Web
service.  Scott introduced the notion that it
was a self-organizing principle.  We spent a
lot of time talking about incentives and new
kind of incentive that may not be directly
monetary that maybe drive some of these
social incentives.  And I think we all have a
sense of what this phenomenon is about.
                       87
            People are willing to, number 1,
ontribute some sense of their Web presence.
4          You know, some efforts on their part.  Some
5          discussion about the ess economic value
6          that could be mined by others.  People are
7          willing to contribute that.  The Web seems to
provide a platform for that, accelerates the
degree to which people can interact in that
 environment.
             And, you know, there's this
 emerging phenomenon that we're all trying to
 figure out.  Okay, now we see this behavior
 happening.  How do we make or create an
 environment in which positive social change
is linked to that commitment that's made by
individual users acting in a network.
            So, this afternoon what we wanted
to dive into is the application of those
principles in philanthropy and in social
action.  And there's two obvious ways to
think about it.  One is that there's if the
established infrastructure of philanthropy
and one could think about it, in my world the
model would be in the enterprise software
                       88
world where business has deployed software
hat improve the efficiency of those
usinesses, sometimes fundamentally changing
he way the organization worked together, but
ll within the boundaries of the
7          organization.  That was the enterprise
8          software wor
9                      And then we began to see models
10          emerge that were fundamentally disruptive to
 the existing structure of markets.  So
 Google, as an example, clearly fundamentally
 disrupted the advertising market.  CBS in
 their best year had 350 advertisers.  And
 Google, my guess, I don't think they
 published it, has something like 850,000
 advertisers.  And it was they created a
 fundamentally different business that has
changed the structure of that market.
            So there's two things that we can
think of technology doing in the philanthropy
and social action space.  One is improving
the efficiency of the existing businesses and
the other is creating brand-new businesses or
fundamentally disrupting the structure of the
                       89
markets.
           I don't think they're mutually
xclusive.  I don't want to set up a binary
pposition.  But I think we need to talk
bout both of those.  And I'd love to have
nybody jump in and help me out here with
ome thoughts on which of those is more
mportant, which of those is likely to have
10          happen.  How they're going to happen.
11                   MR. COSTOLO:  I think that one of
12          the interesting things about lightweight Web
13          services and peer reviewed Web service is
 people will start to end up using them for
 things that you didn't anticipate.  And of
 course lots of times they might end up using
 them for things you may not like.
             So that's not particularly of a
 concern in a commercial/social media company.
 For example, where you might say if it's
 MySpace founders, thank god they're using it
as much as they are.  We only care that
they're using it for X.
            But in the philanthropic world,
right, where you may have founders or people
                       90
invested in the development of the platform
ho are a lot or interested in, well, I want
t to be used for this, right.  But people
re using it, set up al Qaeda relief funds,
ight.  Much more interesting tension there.
           MR. BURNHAM:  Absolutely.  And so
n the case of MySpace or Facebook or Craig's
ist --  hello Craig -- well, you know he's
going to get hit now.  But, you know, there's
a lot of activity on that site that is, well,
consciously uncontrolled.
13                      And the point, I think, Dick is
14          makins that Craigslist I think has a
15          social mission of making it possible for
16          people to collaborate, work together, and
 solve problems together.  But it doesn't try
 and decide what problems are being solved.
             And when you have a nonprofit
 with a social mission, maybe they're going to
 be less comfortable putting a platform up
 that they can't direct.
             MR. COSTOLO:  It certainly goes
 into the statement earlier in the day that
will probably be a new organization that
                       91
comes along that enables that to happen.
ook, I'm going to do this knowing that there
re going to be things that have gone on here
hat I don't like.
           MS. CRUTCHFIELD:  Well, as
elating the foundation for the next phase of
his discussion, I just want to share a
ittle bit from the perspective of lists for
15 years that the nonprofit and social sector
space.  There's a misconception floating
around that I think we should sort of bring
all the dollars onto the table.
            First of all, assumptions are
being made about how nonprofits operate what
16          they may or may not be comfortable with.
17          Lobefore the open source was highlighted
18          on the Internet, nonprofits have been
19          successfully using open source strategies
 from the beginning.  In fact, in the book
 that I've written, one of the key success
 factors of the highest performing nonprofits
 is precisely this notion of creating an open
 source way to tackle the problems that
 they're trying to solve.
                           92
             So I'll give you one example.  An
xample of the groups in our book range from
abitats For Humanity to Teachers of America
o Self-Help.  The Heritage Foundation's in
ur book.  The Heritage Foundation is
ctually a great, powerful think tank and
dvocacy institution.  They are precisely
uccessful.  That while they have one site in
Washington, D.C., from the very beginning
they said we want to win the war of ideas.
And whether you believe on the right or the
left of the political spectrum, they've
helped win that battle.
            Anytime a policy thinking said
we'll train you, give you our donor list,
help you set up.  Because they drew the
circle so big that they wanted to further the
19          movement.  They thought everybody who had a
20         ece of that vision, they wanted to enable
21          success.  They set up a state of the art
22          recording studio in their offices.  Any shock
 jock, any pundit that could come in with a
 message can.  And they have a quarter of a
 million dollar budget for training them to do
                           93
 so.  They gave in a way and they enable
everybody in the movement to succeed.
            What's interesting, you don't
live in D.C..  I don't even know if anybody
n this room can name the CEO of the Heritage
oundation.  We know Ralph Reed.  You know
he Christian Coalition.  Still, the Heritage
oundation's been there for 30 years.  You
don't know his name.  Incredibly powerful.
He leads from behind.  It's all about
enabling others.  So I just use that as
examples.  Every nonprofit that's been highly
successful has used this sort of approach;
they give it away.
            Exploratorium is another great
example.  The first hands-on science and
technology movement center.  They
revolutionize what we were talking about,
museums today, over lunch.  Said a museum
shouldn't be just a dusty place with rare
22          facts, artifacts you can look at, never
23       touch.  You need to experience it based on
24          the worldwide hands-on science museum.
25          Nobody has ever heard of Exploratory if you
                           94
 haven't been to northern California.
Probably everybody in this room has at least
been in touch there.  They expect, 10 percent
of their budget helping every other science
museum copy their model and spread it.  Never
asking for branding affiliation and never
asking for any kind of quid pro quo.  So they
ede it.  But it's not visible on the balance
sheet.  It's not visible in other ways.  So
is this is how.  And I'm not saying every
nonprofit, by the way, does it this way.  But
the best, according to our research in our
book, do it.  So business world is in the
nonprofit world.
            I think where the challenge lies
for us, now we're talking about the Internet,
the difference that makes in terms of being
able to scale solutions.  Not every social
problem has an Internet application.  But I
think that a big challenge that we as a
social sector face is how do we spread these
ideas, these solutions.  And part of it is
scaling up our organization.  And this is
25          where we get into the challenge of the la

                                                           95
 of accessing capital or efficient capital
markets.  If you're a for profit company you
can go to venture capital.  You can go to the
public markets.  You get big money quick.
            Kiva is a good example.  Meeting
with him before this, he needs several
million dollars do scale up to meet some of
his challenges.  He's going hand to hand
grant to grant.  The foundation that I
represent can do some.  But there's not a
place where entrepeneurs can go with a great
idea for the social sector and get relatively
big money quickly for that investment.
            So one of the challenges for this
group is how to do we market like that.  Not
just by issues.  DonorsChoose have an
education space at a specific project, but at
a larger level.  We need to try to solve this
type of capital market challenge for the
social sector so that really great ideas can
get to scale.  And right now we don't have
that.
            MR. DAR:  We're in the same
sector.  Idealist is, we're not profit.  So we
                                                           96

see nonprofits all over the world, thousands
of them.  I think, honestly, from my
perspective, the groups that you pointed to
are exceptions that make the rule.  Which is
that most nonprofits are, in fact, viciously
and highly competitive.  And when I say
"viciously," I choose the word carefully
because they're competitive in a sort of
passive-aggressive way that can drive you
crazy.
            And the for profit sector, the
rhetoric is extremely clear.  We know Google.
We know Yahoo.  We know exactly what they
have in common.  We know where they compete.
They know where they compete.  And the fact
that they're competitors and acknowledge
that.  In fact, collaborate on certain
things.  The government quickly co