I think we are devolving to where the Churchill Maxim applies: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” At one extreme, we see someone wanting to give economic disincentive for companies to donate their people to work on open standards. That would leave us with… nobody (before one throws stones, I am in the nobody class). At the other extreme, we see someone wanting to give strong economic incentive for companies to buy influence on the standards process and have our publications reflect the will of corporations, not the best, technical choice. I would offer that funding the IETF via corporate donations,* meeting fees, and PIR revenues is the worst way of funding an SDO, except for all the others. * I am literal about corporate donations being donations (gifts). A lot of IETF sponsorship goes through the Internet Society, a U.S. 503(c) entity. If a corporation would be getting a direct benefit from donating, that would put the Internet Society’s tax status in jeopardy. Thus, we are very careful NOT to allow donors to buy influence or get other tangible benefits from their donation. Now, corporations rarely (ever?) do something just to feel good. As it happens, the fact that the world is better off with a funded IETF and corporations are part of the world is OK. Ultimately, a stronger Internet is better for these corporations’ selfish interests. However, what it also means is that corporations do not get better better - everyone gets the same better. On Oct 2, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Ray Bellis <Ray.Bellis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2 Oct 2014, at 15:21, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I see the cost should increase for who use the time slots of the meeting-time, so the IETF adopted IDs and presentations. I say no punishment/fess for individuals but add fees for companies presenting or authoring. I say only companies that have their name on the IETF drafts or on the presentations. > > You are kidding, right? > > Your proposal as it stands would kill off many employers' participation at IETF stone cold dead. > > Also, you forget the one of the IETF's key features is that strictly speaking it is not companies that participate, it is individuals. Often those individuals are supported through the kind grace of their employers, and to seek to actually charge those employers even more for their employee's highly valuable contributions is frankly batshit crazy. > > Ray >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail