Thus spake "Bonney Kooper" <bk9001@yahoo.com> > If the cost of running A PARTICULAR IETF meeting is > concerned then it is true (this is what one would call > the element view of the problem). But if you take the > system view and consider the big picture, and try to > see who is benefitting most in increased revenues as a > result of pushing their proprietary standards as IETF > standards, then like many you would think that > companies that send lots of delegates are being > subsidized by single and independant developers in > more than one way. > First, the corporations benefit by > getting their standards approved by show of mite and > then shipping those equipment/standards for billions > dollar of profit. Without IETF's approval they won't > be able to ship those equipment as "open systems". But > the problem is many times these so called systems are > only opened once these corporations are ready to > ship!. To believe this, you must believe that large vendors are unable to ship a product until it has some sort of IETF rubber stamp. You must also believe that this IETF rubber stamp is only available to large vendors, and only large vendors will benefit from it. Given that the IETF does not recognize organizations at all, it is hard to agree with this model. The process is specifically designed to prevent this from happening, and I think the current IDNA argument shows that it's difficult to railroad a WG with a bad idea. > Also, as big companies send more people, they increase > the cost of the conference for the organisers, and > hence the cost for every one, so they should bear more > cost. If you are going to have a meeting of just 25 > people costs, i believe but could be wrong, don't > increase linearly if you organise a meeting for 500 > people. You now need many more halls and cost baloons > up. So they are not exactly paying there fair share, > are they really? You have a tacit assumption here that when a large vendor, which makes hundreds of products across dozens of market sectors, happens to send 20 people, those people have less valuable input than if 20 small vendors each sent one person to the same meetings. Please prove this is true. S
