At 17:22 01/08/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
That would be fine, if I changed the Newcomer's Orientation :-)
Spencer
Spencer,
However, many people here are not using their 'individual money' to get
here in Paris. Our name badges list our employers (in most cases). I
think its a different issue if I come to the mic and say, 'We at the ACME
company would like to state, for the record, that we support the foo bar
proposal and hope it becomes an official RFC as soon as possible. It
doesn't bug me one-way or another if folks state their name & who pays
the bills.
Spencer,
I do not claim that my technical positions are correct, but that they are
independent and I pretend they prove that IETF is what it claims: by
individuals. I pay dearly that independence for years (which has many other
R&D advantages). This permits me, may be clumsily but loyally, to support
for free the interests of open-source, of small industries, of developing
countries, of a user-centric architecture. So, what is sad is when I am
asked by an IETF establishment member "do you realise how much you _cost_
to the industry?". Which industry? Not mine in any case. Fostering
competition is not favoring my competition.
This is why I suggest the real danger for the IETF is the collusion of
large organisations through external consortia to get a market dominance
through de facto excluding IETF standardisation and IANA registry control.
And this is why I suggest the best way to address it is simply to ask for
the truth, the whole truth.
Participation should be individual, but published details should include
who foots the costs, the corporation, the relevant consortia and main
customers for consultants. We need everyone, including commercial
consortia, individual searchers, non-profits, Government, Academic
projects, etc., but, please read RFC 3869, on a equal participation
opportunity basis. This is the only way to obtain open, scalable and
uniform standards.
I live nearby the Palais des Congrès. But I do not come since I am not
invited for free by IASA as we are invited by ICANN. The IETF policy must
be consistent: there is no reason to pay personal money to help interests I
defend to be treated unequal, due to often disclosed but non published
affinities. They get there far more than what they pay for, why would I in
addition subsidise them?
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf