--On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 13:10 +0000 Kathy Brown
<brown@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As we head towards IETF 96 next week, I want to provide a
> brief update on the IETF Endowment‹one of the variety of
> ways the Internet Society works with the IETF on funding its
> activities. Other ongoing efforts include providing annual
> direct funding, raising sponsorships, and providing people and
> back office resources. As the IETF Endowment develops, the
> Internet Society remains committed to continuing its support
> of the IETF in these ways as well.
>
> As you may recall, the IETF Endowment resulted from
> transforming the Open Internet Endowment to be dedicated
> solely to supporting the IETF.
Kathy,
Since I won't be in Berlin to ask this question in person...
I signed up for, and contributed to, the Open Internet Endowment
based on commitments that its mission would be very broad, not
be turned into an IETF support fund. I don't believe donors
were even superficially consulted about the change. What would
happen if I (and maybe others who feel the same way) were to ask
for refunds on the basis that we never agreed to repurposing of
the funds?
In addition to that perverse curiosity, I see a real issue. At
least some of us think we have seen a corrosive effect of
readily-available funding or reserves on several
Internet-related institutions, particular with regard to
encouraging expansion beyond core roles and various sorts of
adventurism. While I understand it will make the jobs they
signed up for a bit harder, I think anything that forces the
IAOC and IESG to carefully consider the risks and possible
consequences of various strategies and to share those
considerations with the community is A Good Thing. I can't help
but believe that, if faced with, for example, an "if we go to
that place, a lot of people might not come" possibility, there
would be more actual consultation with the community, including
exposure of the risks and alternatives, than when there is
confidence that ISOC or the IETF Endowment would bail things out
with no long-term ill effects.
So maybe we should not be treating this as entirely a good thing
without any downsides.
best,
john