Re: IETF Endowment update
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 13 July 2016 19:49 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4058A12D5B1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] 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 nC6Exn3JYQcg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8814312D5AE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1bNQAD-000F9P-Uk; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 15:49:45 -0400
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 15:49:40 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Kathy Brown <brown@isoc.org>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Subject: Re: IETF Endowment update
Message-ID: <A46E9E71C7555531F4B669B0@JcK-HP8200>
In-Reply-To: <D3AC023D.177074%brown@isoc.org>
References: <D3AA6473.17603E%brown@isoc.org> <4CFE92A053EFFCAC5A1EBF2C@JcK-HP8200> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1607121312390.18547@bofh.nohats.ca> <D3AC023D.177074%brown@isoc.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QnZ9dQ4yGwQtbr50OCZYp8E_C4E>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:49:54 -0000
Kathy, I can't speak for Paul (or others), but I see this more as a matter of principle and precedents that I hope will not be repeated than as an actual problem on which it is useful to spend significantly more time. For context, I'm in somewhat the same position Paul mentions: because of some constraints triggered by health issues, the typical IETF meeting I've attended outside North America in the last decade has cost me an average of about $10K out of pocket before lost income is considered. I think the IETF's expecting additional contributions by repurposing funds already contributed for a broader set of purposes is not reasonable although hoping for contribution to the now-designated IETF Endowment is entirely reasonable. I'd even suggest that it would be reasonable for those who have taken to remote participation to save money donate some portion of the equivalent of the registration fees to the IETF Endowment. However, to clarify one issue... --On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 18:38 +0000 Kathy Brown <brown@isoc.org> wrote: > John and Paul, > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts. > > The shift in focus for the Endowment was shared at IETF 94 > last year, and restated on this list earlier this year. The > shift was undertaken in consultation with the ISOC Board and > the IAOC. "Shared" and "restated" are interesting choices of words around the IETF. I suggest "announced" was closer to what occurred and would incorporate recent comments by others about announcements, or even discussion, at plenaries not being how the IETF makes final decisions. In either event, the contributors prior to the shift were not, AFAICT, consulted except, apparently, if they were members of the ISOC Board and/or the IAOC. I note that the 21 April IAOC minutes mention a discussion of sustainability but not specifically this issue and that the 5 April minutes do not mention it (unless the discussion was part of the elided material under "Finances" marked <confidential> ... </confidential>). I can find no mention of it in the March or February 2016 minutes. It is mentioned in the January minutes under "2. Finance". To save people looking it up, that entire subsection reads b. IETF Endowment Kathy gave an update on the status of the endowment. <Confidential> </Confidential> Perhaps not a model of transparency, especially if the community is to be told that this is ok because the IAOC signed off. And I note that the IAOC appears to be returning to its traditional ways - no minutes have been posted for May or June. Consultation with the IAOC would be problematic for another reason. Given their responsibilities, the question, AFAICT, would turn into "we propose to earmark this pot of money for you, do you have any objections that don't violate those responsibilities?". Again, I think it is appropriate to drop this and move on, but I hope it can be noted that the way this was handled is probably not a good way to do things in this community. I also hope the recently-appointed Nomcom and other IETF-related groups that appoint IAOC and/or ISOC BoT members are taking note. best regards, john
- Re: IETF Endowment update Leif Johansson
- Re: IETF Endowment update nalini.elkins
- Re: IETF Endowment update Ole Jacobsen
- Re: IETF Endowment update nalini.elkins
- Re: IETF Endowment update Richard Shockey
- Re: IETF Endowment update Doug Ewell
- Re: IETF Endowment update Scott O. Bradner
- Re: IETF Endowment update Richard Shockey
- Re: IETF Endowment update Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: IETF Endowment update Harald Alvestrand
- Re: IETF Endowment update Eliot Lear
- Re: IETF Endowment update Suzanne Woolf
- Re: IETF Endowment update John Levine
- Re: IETF Endowment update Kathy Brown
- Re: IETF Endowment update Michael StJohns
- Re: IETF Endowment update Livingood, Jason
- Re: IETF Endowment update Paul Wouters
- Re: IETF Endowment update John C Klensin
- Re: IETF Endowment update Kathy Brown
- Re: IETF Endowment update Richard Shockey
- Re: IETF funding needs (Was: Re: IETF Endowment u… S Moonesamy
- Re: IETF funding needs (Was: Re: IETF Endowment u… nalini.elkins
- IETF funding needs (Was: Re: IETF Endowment updat… Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF Endowment update John C Klensin
- IETF Endowment update Kathy Brown
- Re: IETF Endowment update Paul Wouters
- Re: IETF Endowment update Russ Housley