Money is the answer? Hum..

Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> Sun, 01 March 2015 22:35 UTC

User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.8.150116
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:35:32 -0500
Subject: Money is the answer? Hum..
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <D118F935.20D89%richard@shockey.us>
Thread-Topic: Money is the answer? Hum..
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/J58TjRECMyLSbufHwQREdC_Dfe4>
Cc: diversity@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
Precedence: list




>
>>> The rough consensus process is actually quite good at resisting gaming
>>> by BigEvil Corporation; see sections 6 and 7 of RFC 7282.
>> 
>> Again: my concern isn't gaming of consensus, nor do I believe
>> corporations who sponsor their employees' IETF work are evil.  My
>> concern is diversity within the IETF and within the larger sphere of
>> Internet governance.
>
>Those are two entirely different questions. As far as the IETF goes,
>we need to attract and welcome top class engineers who have the
>capacity *as individuals* to join the technical meritocracy. As far
>as "the larger sphere of Internet governance" goes, the more time
>passes, the less idea I have of what that means or why it matters.

The reality is long term IETF participation is becoming a career limiting
move for a certain class of Internet Engineering professional.  Sadly we
don¹t do stock options. The more bureaucratic we become the more we start
to look like ah .. <cough> Geneva.

As far as the internet governance issue .. Well there are some folks in
the US that have some very definite ideas about that. We¹ll see when the
the latest rockem sockem action packed Report and Order from the FCC looks
like. 

Can you define ³fair and reasonable² so what is ³reasonable network
management²? 

Coming to a laser printer near you in a couple of weeks. Film at 11 (EST)


>
>And I remind you that this thread started around the question of how
>can we fund a model with more emphasis on remote participation and
>less emphasis on face-to-face meetings. It's a sad fact that without
>money at the level of a few $M per year, we can't fund any model at all.


Humm ³Money is the answer, what is the question?"  I seem to have heard
that proposition before.

The obvious answer is for ISOC on behalf of the IETF to take over ICANN
once and for all. 

They certainly have more money than they know what to do with so it seems
logical. We certainly know what to do with it.

Cookies (especially gluten free cookies) and ice cream could be free!
Given ICANN's free cash flow we might be able to add shrimp bowls.



>

Money is the answer? Hum.. Richard Shockey