I totally second this. I apologize for engaging with him earlier; I didn't realize at the time that he was such a pathetic troll. *Neil P. Quinn* +1 (202) 656 3457 On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jake Orlowitz <jorlowitz(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Greetings, Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990. Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services (totalling US$1.7M) which were conducted by Jones Day (page 61 - Part VII): As our global reach has grown over time, we felt it was important to strengthen the trademark portfolio and solidify the protection of Wikimedia’s marks globally. In December 2013, we began working with Jones Day on our global trademark filings, registrations, and oppositions. During the 2014-2015 fiscal year we filed 1,500+ new trademark applications for 35 different trademarks in 100+ countries. A significant portion of the legal services expenses in 2014-2015 went toward the mandatory government trademark application filing fees. These new trademark applications contained expanded coverage and revised descriptions to ensure better protection of Wikimedia's marks and projects, including countries where readership was growing through targeted programs or distribution (such as Wikipedia Zero and mobile readership). Going forward, we anticipate (and are beginning to realize) a decrease in trademark expenses year over year, now that we have this initial foundation is in place. This investment immediately benefits Wikimedia and its communities by ensuring that our trademark portfolio reflects the maturity and breadth of the Wikimedia movement, and protects us against certain forms of infringement or misuse. Regarding Lodewijk's question about compensation to the 'ED team': The Foundation regularly discloses compensation information for Foundation leadership through our Form 990 filings. The 990 disclosure is an approach widely relied on by many different stakeholders: it is clear, transparent, consistent with other charitable entities, and a matter of public record. As such, we have chosen to use it as our primary means of disclosure. The Signpost recently also reached out with a similar question about the special advisor role. Here is the response Patricio shared: "In May 2014, Jan-Bart announced that Sue would stay on as a special advisor,[1] which he confirmed again in June that year.[2] The Board felt that Sue Gardner's knowledge and experience in our movement was valuable to support the Foundation as it went through that ED transition. In general, it is good practice to make sure that there is the ability to draw on the expertise of an experienced former executive - in this case, someone who grew the organization from a few people to more than 200. We felt this was an important leadership change, perhaps one of the bigger ones in the Foundation’s history. This was a practical means of ensuring the handover went as smoothly as possible, and key institutional knowledge was preserved during an important period of transition." As for the question about why the Wikimedia Foundation spent $317,490 fighting "cybersquatters" that offered to donate the domain in dispute: We’re not sure where this question comes from, as we haven’t dealt with a case that fits this description. We do not fight cybersquatters who offer to donate their domains (especially if they are community members), and, to date, we have not spent anything approaching that much money on this type of case. In answer to a question that was asked on Facebook: "i'm curious about the investment of cash in corporate and municipal bonds. is there an investment policy? no sign of working capital needs and how to manage cash. no sign of endowment preparation." Our investment policy, which is the guidance being used today, is available on Foundation wiki.[3] The investment policy for the endowment will be set by the Wikimedia Endowment Advisory Board that we are forming right now. We are recruiting Advisory Board Trustees with significant investment expertise, from a diverse set of backgrounds. We announced the appointment of Annette Campbell-White last week as one of the founding board members. You can read more about her here.[4] Again, thanks for your questions and feedback both on this list and elsewhere. -Gregory Varnum Wikimedia Foundation [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071458.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072372.html [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Investment_Policy [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/11/annette-campbell-white-endowment/

That makes sense - must have been a massive undertaking. Many thanks for clarifying. Chris

Thanks Greg for the responses. As for the ED team, that answers part of my question. That Sue was appointed as special advisor, was indeed public knowledge - but for what duration was that? And was that a full time position (or anything near full time), given that her compensation was as high as that of the ED herself? People suggested that this included compensation for earlier years - was that the case? That would explain again a bit more. Also part of the question was why the raise was so steep - was this simply matching the reality of the current job market, or was there something else behind it (i.e. a bonus mechanism etc). It would be great if you could clarify! Thanks! Lodewijk 2016-05-25 12:45 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com>om>:

Greetings, I just wanted to verify that we will be sending out answers to these additional questions. This past weekend was a holiday in the United States, and so we have not yet finished gathering the information to give accurate response. Thank you for your patience, and please let me know if you have any additional questions. Gregory Varnum Wikimedia Foundation --- Gregory Varnum Communications Strategist (Contractor) Wikimedia Foundation gvarnum(a)wikimedia.org

On 5 Jun 2016 05:19, "Greg Varnum" <gvarnum(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: were separate from consulting costs. Unfortunately, we don’t have an easy, quick way to divide the Jones Day expenses into registration fees and legal fees, but we can provide more information about where the costs came from. Each trademark application costs about $1,000–5,000 (sometimes more), including filing fees and attorney’s fees. The cost for each application depends on the country’s application fees, the country’s administrative hurdles, the breadth of protection we are seeking, whether we can reuse materials prepared for previous applications, and whether we encounter resistance from trademark offices or other trademark holders. Your response isnt clear, but it strongly implies the stated US$1.7M stated on page p.61 does include the fees paid by Jones Day to relevant government bodies around the world. No surprise there. But it is surprising that Jones Day doesnt provide detailed invoices that separate their own services from fees they have paid on the WMF's behalf. If the WMF doesnt know what the fees cost, the WMF does not know how much extra it paid for an external consultant to do the paperwork for them ... ? How much will it cost for someone to split the 1.7 M bill? Their relationship with WMF has come a long way since the 'pro bono' work that Jones Day did to recommend acquiring a trademark on a public domain logo (and somehow convincing many WMF staff that it was a brilliant idea). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo/Request_for_consultatio… in Europe (page 35), this represents our foreign currency bank accounts with JP Morgan in the UK. The purpose of this holding is to retain donations received in EUR, GBP, CAD and AUD in their original currency to minimize currency exchange risks. Do I understand correctly that the 5.2M was to meet minimum account opening deposit criteria for four accounts for the four currency. The money cant be withdrawn while these accounts are open? Is it being managed by an investment fund? If so, which one, or what is the expected rate of return on this investment. Did the WMF have an option for which fund was used, or was it stipulated by JP Morgan/ etc? -- John

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:09 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote: I havent seen any clarification regarding this. Was the investment in pound sterling? The pound has been going down steadily over the last year. And now we have a steep drop due to Brexit. Is the investment being used by JP Morgan to support fossil fuel projects? -- John Vandenberg

Am not speaking from a position of particular knowledge on this, but the way I read original the email was simply that income was held in some kind of depsit account in the currency in which it was received - so GBP income remained in GBP until there was a need to spend GBP. WMF does after all have significant expenditures in other currencies than dollars (e.g. grants and salaries of overseas staff). Regards, Chris