Re: [Iasa20] IASA 2.0 minutes

Glenn Deen <rgd.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 24 April 2017 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rgd.ietf@gmail.com>
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 92150129440 for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 0rR9JZq-6djA for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 06:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x244.google.com (mail-pg0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BC81126DEE for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 06:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x244.google.com with SMTP id 34so4475463pgx.3 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 06:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dvOg1yvfe3H2ngHIavcJqWXtWwEy7JGWhAHdQlbG2hU=; b=rbbrGh2CJMuBckddtfyDIlk71YCu9lVshsw62d6xSw1Ike7Pg0piolfdNFAME9l60u nlngQ4sVJlIuGsQ1qwL5wYct73bLY9HZHiVMvqfE3PbLn+1D7eEl4yP2ofed4uIASoqM DnZxCxkIjqXBhpqbEHtPQjAVyCudtlufck7jvfOE3Ba7qmdmHMahRRXElEh9uFWTiMAT RDWRm2GWxCcGVED4pD6uafCg5Iz5wdlDUqQ7pKsmTFVr+yekBxbxK31dKC5+ck2+ts6Z IQTfnat9E+Cw6AuC0WHqtqhTeBZNUYnkCnR+pqn/ImHHobfrhBL0bvamKW2hpQR+JfYI SJsA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dvOg1yvfe3H2ngHIavcJqWXtWwEy7JGWhAHdQlbG2hU=; b=KzsmoU5W+duH0rYnhje8ZJATIvCs9cPAeG5wSj7V4dgK+Eyy7cFGcaEC7XuxrWunO1 pIBEM5QlaJnCkuAUf2UI7tqXxXBwqystVRh8xNLec7D6JZ0kZD0yL5TYFMyMZovtnz6P szg8RIFsr48oQa7+aD93ZY2/+Y0CPNhXcUHQx7UsCJcrfdims1B7RPyurbLEEk9J3K5a a4Kd0TY6Pi0Mmmg090RbEqXB51hgouN1m0TqNUm9QnfuFftstUny8/dRRXcOiHR/4yb+ +7eW+U45MyUHrmOiuw5FQbZhewm9pEUvzIzjvR3ecZwb7GpG5cyxE7W3ktO0ZN7NOFqI H1Fg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7icFAmH6vRqE4A6C6MHnT5Lyh7ppa/0+XjyPTxwHl5Xw5rCXsD GV9jvGA3dcvmJA==
X-Received: by 10.84.197.1 with SMTP id m1mr33316026pld.183.1493042213948; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 06:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2605:e000:141b:18d:ed88:7518:9e43:53b5? ([2605:e000:141b:18d:ed88:7518:9e43:53b5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f62sm31269721pfb.84.2017.04.24.06.56.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Apr 2017 06:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Glenn Deen <rgd.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (14E304)
In-Reply-To: <F8062A8E-4366-411E-B8EE-4304EADFFCC1@cooperw.in>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 06:56:52 -0700
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, "iasa20@ietf.org" <iasa20@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7B249050-B80A-4AE1-A116-CAD13B1FBA6C@gmail.com>
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> <B1609C31-505A-4149-9757-E1226CFD195E@gmail.com> <F8062A8E-4366-411E-B8EE-4304EADFFCC1@cooperw.in>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/TwE1EwZlXQFZZ85q-htLMAxSaLw>
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: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:56:56 -0000

I agree that we should support both directed sponsorships for meeting elements and also general contributions. We in fact for this today ISOCs contribution today is a general contribution.   In addition we also currently accept in kind contributions such as circuits for meetings, networking gear, or even hosting of interim meetings of working groups.

This makes the meeting fund raising efforts as flexible as they can be but keeps them outside of influencing IETF work decisions.

Since we are capturing relationship contexts, I think "influence over IETF administrative matters"..." on meeting planning" maybe implies too direct or strong a relationship when the relationship in practice is less direct, especially when we've been discussing inappropriate influence on IETF work rescissions.

The availability of potential sponsorships is one of the many inputs to the meeting planning considerations, but not over the wants of the community or the cost/benefit to the IETF.  

But overall, I agree with you on the different modes of acceptable sponsorships that do not undermine the IETFs integrity.

-Glenn
Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 23, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> I do think sponsors have an influence over IETF administrative matters — specifically meeting planning, as Glenn alludes to below. And I think he articulates one important view among a diversity of views, namely that being able to attach sponsorship dollars to specific meeting-related items can be very important for some sponsors. For others, I gather it may be less important. So perhaps what we want to strive for here is flexibility: the ability for some sponsors to support specific meeting-related items, and others to provide more generalized support for IETF administration. I don’t see compelling reasons why we shouldn’t be able to support both options at once.