See below - NOT hat - personal views. On 10/1/23, 14:24, "ietf on behalf of S Moonesamy" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > I noticed the following sentence on the web site: "This lack of membership ensures its position as the primary neutral [in italics] standards body because participants cannot exert influence as they could in a pay-to-play organization where members, companies, or governments pay fees to set the direction." I used to follow IETF meetings at very odd hours. I refrained from doing that since the pay-to-play fee was instituted. Saying that "pay-to-play fee was instituted" seems a little overblown. Pay-to-play **IS NOT** IMO: - Paying a fee to attend a conference in order to partially cover the costs of that conference - An employer letting an employee spend time volunteering to serve as a WG chair or AD, etc. Here's what pay-to-play **IS** IMO: - Paying a fee of $X for a company to join and participate in an organization (without the fee you could not join a mailing list, etc.) - Having documents that are approved by voting by named, paying companies & where the amount of payment drives the weight of the vote (i.e., if Company A paid $10 and Company B paid $5, then Company A's vote is weighted at 2x Company B's vote) Jason
