RE: Charging I-Ds

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Title: RE: Charging I-Ds

I always used to say that corporate memberships would be the worst means I could imagine to fund the ietf.

It is gratifying to find that others have suceeded where I have failed.

Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Peter Sherbin [mailto:pesherb@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Tuesday, July 31, 2007 05:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
To:     Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Eric Gray (LO/EUS); Melinda Shore; Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst
Cc:     ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject:        RE: Charging I-Ds

> The current business model does not bring in enough cash. How do we bring in more
> in a way that furthers ietf goals?

E.g. other standards setting bodies have paid memberships and/or sellable standards.

IETF unique way could be to charge a fee for an address allocation to RIRs. On their
side RIRs would charge for assignments as they do now and return a fair share back
to IANA/IETF.

If IETF start charging for reading contributors' papers how much voluntary
contribution such arrangement would generate? Is there a guarantee that a pre-paid
content remains worth reading?


Thanks,

Peter



--- "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This is a topic on which everyone can have an opinion, hence many posts.
>
> Perhaps if there was a charge per post to an ietf mailing list?
>
> There is a serious point here though, Cerf, Postel and co have left us an
> institution with a 60s flower power era business model and a 1990s expectation of
> quality of service.
>
> The current business model does not bring in enough cash. How do we bring in more
> in a way that furthers ietf goals?
>
> We could adopt the nist model of franchising conformance testing, only with an
> incremental fee on top paid to the ietf for use of the brand.
>
> The fee per item does not have to be very large to bring in a lot of cash. We only
> need five or so million a year.
>
>
>
> Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         Eric Gray (LO/EUS) [mailto:eric.gray@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
> To:   Melinda Shore; Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst
> Cc:   ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject:      RE: Charging I-Ds
>
> Melinda,
>
>       I was trying to avoid weighing in on this discussion.
> The discussion is essentially inane, and that's (at least
> part of) your point.  After all, the thought that someone
> might be asked to work on an ID, and then - in addition to
> volunteering their time to do the work - they then need to
> pay (per iteration) for the privilege of submitting it is
> utterly absurd.
>
>       The whole idea of taxing volunteers is, as you said,
> ghastly.
>
>       But - while we're on the subject of volunteering - your
> comment that reviews are at "no cost to the IETF" isn't quite
> correct.  As a well-known SciFi author used to say -
>
>       "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch"
>
> - (or TANSTAAFL).  The effort to find sufficient volunteers
> to review documents is not a "no cost" exercise.
>
> --
> Eric Gray
> Principal Engineer
> Ericsson 
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Melinda Shore [mailto:mshore@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:02 AM
> > To: Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst
> > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Charging I-Ds
> >
> > On 7/31/07 10:51 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > If an I-D is reviewed by several persons in the WG, one AD, two
> > > members of IESG, etc, then, yes, it costs money but such an in-depth
> > > review does not happen for random student-published I-D.
> >
> > There is still no cost to the IETF, since review time is volunteer
> > time.  The costs are for the secretariat, since someone has to extract
> > the attachments or retrieve the drafts, get them into the database,
> > keep the systems up and running, etc.
> >
> > That said, I think the idea of charging for draft publication is
> > ghastly.  Incentives matter, and structures that encourage more
> > openness are better than structures that discourage more openness.
> >
> > Melinda
> > 
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]