Re: funding on offer

S Moonesamy <> Sat, 08 May 2021 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8943A1A2E for <>; Sat, 8 May 2021 16:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70WukgwFzmzk for <>; Sat, 8 May 2021 16:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC793A1A2A for <>; Sat, 8 May 2021 16:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 148Ni9gL007095 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 8 May 2021 16:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1620517463; x=1620603863;; bh=Bcoh8sRrIgmwGKkHctwIeyNdUZLpr3BeZS6bFryzZgs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=wk0sDWrInwB2M5eRZsvBiStS+25u6sPBT9Fy7dfzpfiMYK4mHsxSeV+L76zmSj4Sf rZIdjo5DNJvAa3WP+VWZrjOfw6iCeZnQ1MgTBTajttEOCWf8m0zOwt/p4QjMZkVWSj 6qo2VzNIQr8RiROtFynW2DF/GRC7GetVzRay00x4=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 16:40:23 -0700
To: Pete Resnick <>, John C Klensin <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: funding on offer
Cc: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 23:44:34 -0000

Hi Pete, John,
At 10:00 AM 08-05-2021, Pete Resnick wrote:
>All I meant was that we should have a real discussion about whether 
>or not it fit and write down our conclusion somewhere so that we 
>don't need to have this discussion again.

I exchanged a few emails with some students from Europe about a 
decade ago.  They encountered an attendance problem because of 
funding.  The funding offer could be advantageous to both the IETF 
and the few students/participants receiving funding.  Sending funding 
offers is usually frowned upon as that is not the purpose of this 
mailing list.  However, the interaction on the topic is more 
important than figuring out whether the message fits within the 
charter.  It would be useful to write down something if there was a 
recurring problem.

At 10:19 AM 08-05-2021, John C Klensin wrote:
>But that, IMO, takes us into a much more difficult place.  While
>Jay is entitled to his personal opinions --and I have found they
>are usually useful to listen to-- the moment the IETF Executive
>Director starts making decisions about what is, or is not,
>appropriate on, we are, again IMO, halfway down
>the slippery slops toward the LLC regulating and interfering in
>the standards process.


S. Moonesamy