On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 5:49 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: <snip> > Coordinating Committee have become open-ended. Unlike many of > the appointing groups, the IETF is not in a position to > underwrite those costs, i.e., to cover costs of time-salary > and/or travel to the various meetings so as to spread those > costs across the relevant community. The net effect is that > the only people who can plausibly represent the IETF are those > who: This part here made me think, can this issue about cost be the first step on the way to a multi-stakeholder for Internet where only the rich can participate? Rich as in having money AND time to travel to endless meetings around the world? ... I hope not. Personally I would like to get more involved but I can not see a way to get more involved, have no way to fund it, or see how I can get time to do more. Except that, it's great work and good to see discussion on the subject (IANA transition) and future for the Internet. <snip> > p.s. Personal note: despite personal interest in this, > involvement as an advisor to IANA since the late 1970s and early > 1980s, key roles in ICANN's creation and intermittent > involvement since (as liaison to the Board, advisor on multiple > issues (especially IDNs and i18n), and occasional consultant, > I'd not putting my name forward for this role. The reasons are > ultimately connected to the remarks above: I have no funding for > an open-ended commitment that could involve significant time and > travel and I'm already overextended on work I feel I need to do > for the IETF. > > > > Especially with the added requirement for "diversity" Any discussion without historic view have a possibility to repeat old mistakes... -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@xxxxxxxxx | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@xxxxxxxxxxxx