IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Iasa20] IASA 2.0 minutes

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Sat, 22 April 2017 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8563E129BAD for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 04:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 zi-7bCfbV9gn for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 04:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFCA129B6A for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 04:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B282D150; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 14:58:30 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lapPY6w0iplK; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 14:58:29 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:1829::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1282CEA0; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 14:58:29 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C1230D2A-B77D-42B5-A3B9-B00AE5859FA8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <592432f8-68a9-8069-1c90-fe7dd70d97fc@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 13:58:29 +0200
Cc: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>, "iasa20@ietf.org" <iasa20@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <0D7584DB-0AD9-4369-9B07-E131E56C9376@piuha.net>
References: <CABkgnnW2CYoLcfpTwgqKYo0WKfJAjK1gTmNuaamSp=mibtSDUg@mail.gmail.com> <9AE1C2CB-F2D1-4796-8D10-C625D16D41DC@cooperw.in> <d6ecdbc2-bcbb-f4e8-d914-e57ad094714f@gmail.com> <A15970F6-4D71-4C98-A057-393D5CD510EA@cable.comcast.com> <aca56723-49cf-206f-ae57-13c35498a974@gmail.com> <68A7AFC8-A2BE-4906-9767-4ED2B4BA2268@piuha.net> <592432f8-68a9-8069-1c90-fe7dd70d97fc@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/1kNoJ5mpb5R2gI-si4Z25z20vwc>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] IASA 2.0 minutes
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions relating to reorganising the IETF administrative structures in the so called “IASA 2.0” project. <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:58:33 -0000

Brian,

> Understood. But this does underline my concern .... We have to be
> very, very careful that if money is earmarked for the IETF, it is absolutely neutral with
> regard to the content of the IETF's work program.

Absolutely.

But, we started this discussion from feedback from multiple sponsors who expressed that the funding structure should be clearer. Also, I refer to the outcome properties as specified by Alissa: "1. IETF funds should reside in their own independent financial account(s) with independent governance.” and “2. An organization that funds the IETF should have no more influence over IETF standards development outcomes than any other organisation.” I think those are good properties, and I don’t actually see why clarity in the funding structure i.e. that you clearly see that you are actually sponsoring the IETF has the effect that you Brian are worried about. Or why it would be any different concern than in today’s arrangements. If we accepted sponsorship for “option B in working group X”, that would be bad. But we don’t...

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email