your last two mails do not point out all the problems (I am quite interested in Dave's remark on IANA), but they give a good account of a pure technical (management) problem. Internet is defined as the adherence of its users to the documents resulting from the Internet standard process. This process is well defined in theory but faces practical problems we can name an authoring quality, cost and pertinence loop. Let try to break the loop.
We are in exactly the same situation as every publisher on earth: good texts cost. However unlike other publishers we do not pay authors and we do not pay media (for example we are proud RFC documents are free, while ITU documents are not). What every publisher on earth - and on the net - do when his revenues do not match the costs of his publication (readers do not pay, or do not pay enought)?
Three possibilities :
- either he pays (in our case : volontary work and contributions)
- either advertizing pays the media - it means that sponsors think that pertinence will attract readers who will pay them back
- or author pay the service - it means that the authors think quality is worth it
Let consider publications like Nature or other professional publishers have advertzing pages. Then let think about the following ideas :
- signing a draft (what makes publicity to the author and to the author's organization) should be charged in proportion to the author's organization possible commercial return. This is actually the case today, but not transparently and not oargnizaed so it is not efficient and even detrimental). Large organizations spend money ON the IETF (salaries, secretariat, translators). This actually slows the process because they do not suffer from its increased complexity and are not motivated to simplify it. Let now consider that the same total budget is spent BY the IETF: most of the problem would be gone because everyone could work in the same conditions for better deliverables. Let now consider that the money is provided by every Member (what we actually do since voluntaries pay with their own time - so they "pay" large organizations for the time their paid contributors can more easily spend): everyone would want to go faster.
- this could translate easily in a basic (and polite) information provided when joining a WG - listed in the WG page. Who I am, what is my organization, what is the amount of time I can spend (salaries), what is the turn-over of my organization in datacoms. How much my organization can pay to sponsor this effort. Once this is published it would be very poor advertizing for an organization not to foot its pledge. But if they don't they could explain why ... transparently. Many things could be much clearer and benevolent dedication far more acknowledged and assisted. I suppose that internationalization could also be helped (non-US firms advertizing through their active support of the IETF standard process).
- the interest would also be that before publicly showing interest and committing money (they already do it when they tell an employee to join a WG) organizations would most probably carry a market study. This would help WGs a lot.
- obviously a mechanism should be found for "paying" subjects to sponsor more osbcure or research areas. Why nota "Nature-like" publications sponsoring IETF meetings. As a result I suppose IETF meetings receiving a better coverage could get more sponsoring. WGs would also probably get more "dormant" participants who would probably help at the end of the day in evangelizing or supporting testing.
Such a system could be easily managed by an indepedent secretariat organization gathering the "sponsors" (actually authors and authors organizations). All of them being together would nullify the risks of one or few taking leadership. All the more if decisions (we are in administrative area only) are voted on a Member basis and not on a money contribution basis: contributing one dollar (euro, yen) once for one draft would give membership (while showing others if I am a serious contributor or a commercial fake). So it would be a resource management only organization by authors (large, small, individual and voluntaries) only. No impact on the essence of the content, but faster, better, more to the point content because a more efficient (fully respected better supported) Intenet standard process (cheaper to produce) or more demanded content by readers (users). Bill Manning testified that users were the problem: they are the IETF readers ... let us attract their interest, they will help one way or another - this is what one name commerce.
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf