Re: [arch-d] The Internet Architecture for Pandemics/Emergencies/Crises

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 09 May 2020 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028AD3A095F for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 May 2020 02:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O0fEiKgtHw5U for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 May 2020 02:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7703A095C for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 May 2020 02:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.161.209]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 0499niVu014420 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 9 May 2020 02:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1589017797; x=1589104197; i=@elandsys.com; bh=NkUp7V/ewnxrIoooim4o5Tg86Hlk/pM18QU4Hynbfeg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=AMHyyvv6EqX37lALVoFUoshemYp5nt4RuDslqNgs+qFlMv1qfLI829yNtAn186omc XpSNJzP+/1EGHDfCpv+/hKQ64mVSR7ymBkkD6wKqT7/U/YRwS3BfWVDNRwTeZqlRxN p44QNK0km0QkuAF7nInXSc0epO51nyzbLquB4Qkk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200509015027.10a896c8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 02:49:23 -0700
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200508153318.GK62020@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <CAKi_AEtez4BsCbNJ=avUC6bPhz8uXuttBQ_BRQu7izNXiEs6qA@mail.gmail.com> <20200508153318.GK62020@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/sU8xgFWZniFy96vChOLhAnqCFNg>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] The Internet Architecture for Pandemics/Emergencies/Crises
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 09:50:28 -0000

Hi Toerless,
At 08:33 AM 08-05-2020, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>I forwarded to manycouched and mboned because scalable, free video 
>conferencing
>specifically for emergency response style large scale conferences is
>certinly a key tool, but to me the ISOC call for proposals looks like
>very much baked to favour established administrative entities (must be
>able to have track record to manage the money). Aka: I fear it will
>exclude core technical innovators that have not managed to build up
>a bureaucracy large enough to deal with money that way. Too bad.

According to the blog post, the grant is from a foundation which is 
based in Virginia (United States).  It looks oriented for that 
country given that one of the requirements is 501c3 or 
equivalent.  The track record requirement favors entities which are 
already established.

There has to be some checks in place or else you will end up 
sponsoring illegal activities or inappropriate use of 
funds.  Bureaucracy ignores genuine cases, e.g. the people you would 
like to help may not fulfill the requirements.  It can also end up 
driving funding towards managing the funds instead of the actual objective.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy