> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > One of the services that ISOC provides to the IETF is a layer > of indirection for sponsors; they give money into a pool > administered by ISOC (and get a seat on the ISOC AC in > return), but the procedures make it pretty clear that they do > not get any direct influence over the IETF standardization > process that way. Any sponsorship would in my case be justified on either the marketing budget or the recruitment budget. The IETF has a lot of students, sole proprietor consultants etc. There is a significant value in putting the brand out in the venue. There are certain aspects of the company I would like to get out to the IETF membership that might possibly change their view of some technical decisions. For example some pictures of what the back end of the DNS registry looks like might be a useful perspective shift for the folk who think that the .com registry still runs on BIND running off a Motorola based SunOS workstation on Mark Koster's desk. I think that this type of activity is what most people would expect, particularly given that the linkage from the event planning to the working group chairs is pretty weak. Anyone whipping for sponsorship is going to be whipping the current and/or recently retired IAB and IESG members to lobby their own employers. I don't see WG chairs being swayed too easily there. A VeriSign employee was chairing the IAB at the time that Randy Bush decided to single handedly sink chances of deploying DNSSEC for at least five years. Holding the chair made it harder to bring influence to bear, not easier. I don't see how this would be any different. The current funding model makes the IETF disproportionately reliant on one single company that currently employs far more ADs and working group chairs than any other. It also has a habit of recruiting through the IETF. If that company were to have an unexpected earnings shortfall the effect on the IETF could be very significant. Given that it is a growth company and given that setbacks are inevitable over the course of five or ten years there should be a real concern here. The IETF is already effectively sponsored heavily by industry.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf