R. e: ITU document server now costs money
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Fri, 28 July 1995 02:11 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21165; 27 Jul 95 22:11 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21157; 27 Jul 95 22:11 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09840; 27 Jul 95 22:11 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21143; 27 Jul 95 22:11 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21097; 27 Jul 95 22:10 EDT
Received: from aimnet.aimnet.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09806; 27 Jul 95 22:10 EDT
Received: from [204.118.88.39] (dial-cup2-9.iway.aimnet.com [204.118.88.39]) by aimnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA18851; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 19:07:38 -0700
X-Sender: dcrocker@mailhub.aimnet.com
Message-Id: <v03002705ac3def6ac092@[204.118.88.38]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 19:10:49 -0700
To: "Jeffrey I. Schiller" <jis@mit.edu>
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: R. e: ITU document server now costs money
Cc: isoc trustees <isoc-trustees@linus.isoc.org>, ISOC Advisory Council <ISOC-Advisory-Council@linus.isoc.org>, ietf <ietf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>, poised@tis.com
At 6:18 AM 7/26/95, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote: >At 6:07 7/26/95, Vinton G. Cerf wrote: >>what we would have to "charge" if we had to recover the >>administrative costs of the editing and secretariat functions ... >Even contemplating doing this is probably a bad idea. I believe that the I agree completely that we must not charge for access to the documents. However, there probably IS a constructive path we can follow: At the moment, the IETF has no insight into the costs of its operation or the operation of related services such as IANA. (There have been some IESG discussions, in the past and perhaps more recently, but not open IETF discussions.) What I think WOULD be helpful is for an IETF budget to be formulated and the current cost-recovery basis to be listed. To the extent that we want to consider alternative recovery mechanisms, that's fine, though I strongly concur with Jeff's view on NOT charging for documents. To date the IETF community has taken a stance of benign neglect about its finances. Someone has been paying, so let's not worry about it. The problem is that there is some cost to this. My own pet peeve is the continuing view that the US government "dominates" the IETF. Well, it DOES fund the operation. (Sorry, folks. If you think that your attendance fee covers IETF costs, it doesn't.) All of this, however, requires that the IETF community express an interest in the economics of its operation... d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. page: +1 408 581 1174 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA dcrocker@brandenburg.com
- R. e: ITU document server now costs money Jeffrey I. Schiller
- Re: R. e: ITU document server now costs money Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: R. e: ITU document server now costs money Karl Auerbach
- Re: R. e: ITU document server now costs money Theodore Ts'o
- Re: R. e: ITU document server now costs money Chris Shenton
- Re: R. e: ITU document server now costs money Perry E. Metzger
- Re: R. e: ITU document server now costs money Karl Auerbach
- R. e: ITU document server now costs money Dave Crocker
- Re: R. e: ITU document server now costs money John Day