Re: IETF Endowment update
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 12 July 2016 15:53 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 153BD12D0ED for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:53:23 -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 4_YeIlotixce for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:53:21 -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 A578712D08D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:53:21 -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 1bMzzs-0004VI-0h; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:53:20 -0400
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:53:15 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Kathy Brown <brown@isoc.org>
Subject: Re: IETF Endowment update
Message-ID: <4CFE92A053EFFCAC5A1EBF2C@JcK-HP8200>
In-Reply-To: <D3AA6473.17603E%brown@isoc.org>
References: <D3AA6473.17603E%brown@isoc.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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/v7f-ORX6esHgJCWE9bMXUQ6H4aU>
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: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:53:23 -0000
--On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 13:10 +0000 Kathy Brown <brown@isoc.org> wrote: > As we head towards IETF 96 next week, I want to provide a > brief update on the IETF Endowment‹one of the variety of > ways the Internet Society works with the IETF on funding its > activities. Other ongoing efforts include providing annual > direct funding, raising sponsorships, and providing people and > back office resources. As the IETF Endowment develops, the > Internet Society remains committed to continuing its support > of the IETF in these ways as well. > > As you may recall, the IETF Endowment resulted from > transforming the Open Internet Endowment to be dedicated > solely to supporting the IETF. Kathy, Since I won't be in Berlin to ask this question in person... I signed up for, and contributed to, the Open Internet Endowment based on commitments that its mission would be very broad, not be turned into an IETF support fund. I don't believe donors were even superficially consulted about the change. What would happen if I (and maybe others who feel the same way) were to ask for refunds on the basis that we never agreed to repurposing of the funds? In addition to that perverse curiosity, I see a real issue. At least some of us think we have seen a corrosive effect of readily-available funding or reserves on several Internet-related institutions, particular with regard to encouraging expansion beyond core roles and various sorts of adventurism. While I understand it will make the jobs they signed up for a bit harder, I think anything that forces the IAOC and IESG to carefully consider the risks and possible consequences of various strategies and to share those considerations with the community is A Good Thing. I can't help but believe that, if faced with, for example, an "if we go to that place, a lot of people might not come" possibility, there would be more actual consultation with the community, including exposure of the risks and alternatives, than when there is confidence that ISOC or the IETF Endowment would bail things out with no long-term ill effects. So maybe we should not be treating this as entirely a good thing without any downsides. best, 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