On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:26 PM Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think you're asking a different question than the one Stephen and I
> disagree about ("What do I think of this policy") rather than ("Who is
> the stuckee for making this type of policy"?).
No, I was asking about the stuckee. It sounded to me in your original
message that since all meeting operation was in their remit, therefore
pricing of remote-access to meetings was in their remit. I am asking,
since email operation is in their remit, whether pricing for email
access is in their remit.
Then let me answer both questions at once, then: If the IESG attempted to impose such a silly fee, I would tell them they were out of bounds. If the LLC did, I would tell them not to be so silly*.
> I think my answer to Steven is pretty clear on the question you didn't
> ask; let me know if you disagree.
It wasn't to me. That's why I asked.
I hope that was clear,
regards,
Ted
*At one time the IETF worked on hashcash type anti-SPAM measures (Cullen's work on computational puzzles in SIP springs to mind) and there is one parallel universe at least where they succeeded enough that proof-of-work ended up making sense for email anti-spam systems. Attempting to use that in such a parallel universe might be an operational enough decision to fall to the LLC. But using the fees such a process generated (if any) to fund the IETF would still be wrong-headed, and I expect that universe's me would say so.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
