Kathy,
I can't speak for Paul (or others), but I see this more as a
matter of principle and precedents that I hope will not be
repeated than as an actual problem on which it is useful to
spend significantly more time. For context, I'm in somewhat the
same position Paul mentions: because of some constraints
triggered by health issues, the typical IETF meeting I've
attended outside North America in the last decade has cost me an
average of about $10K out of pocket before lost income is
considered. I think the IETF's expecting additional
contributions by repurposing funds already contributed for a
broader set of purposes is not reasonable although hoping for
contribution to the now-designated IETF Endowment is entirely
reasonable. I'd even suggest that it would be reasonable for
those who have taken to remote participation to save money
donate some portion of the equivalent of the registration fees
to the IETF Endowment. However, to clarify one issue...
--On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 18:38 +0000 Kathy Brown
<brown@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John and Paul,
>
> Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
>
> The shift in focus for the Endowment was shared at IETF 94
> last year, and restated on this list earlier this year. The
> shift was undertaken in consultation with the ISOC Board and
> the IAOC.
"Shared" and "restated" are interesting choices of words around
the IETF. I suggest "announced" was closer to what occurred and
would incorporate recent comments by others about announcements,
or even discussion, at plenaries not being how the IETF makes
final decisions. In either event, the contributors prior to the
shift were not, AFAICT, consulted except, apparently, if they
were members of the ISOC Board and/or the IAOC.
I note that the 21 April IAOC minutes mention a discussion of
sustainability but not specifically this issue and that the 5
April minutes do not mention it (unless the discussion was part
of the elided material under "Finances" marked <confidential>
... </confidential>). I can find no mention of it in the March
or February 2016 minutes.
It is mentioned in the January minutes under "2. Finance". To
save people looking it up, that entire subsection reads
b. IETF Endowment
Kathy gave an update on the status of the endowment.
<Confidential>
</Confidential>
Perhaps not a model of transparency, especially if the community
is to be told that this is ok because the IAOC signed off.
And I note that the IAOC appears to be returning to its
traditional ways - no minutes have been posted for May or June.
Consultation with the IAOC would be problematic for another
reason. Given their responsibilities, the question, AFAICT,
would turn into "we propose to earmark this pot of money for
you, do you have any objections that don't violate those
responsibilities?".
Again, I think it is appropriate to drop this and move on, but I
hope it can be noted that the way this was handled is probably
not a good way to do things in this community. I also hope the
recently-appointed Nomcom and other IETF-related groups that
appoint IAOC and/or ISOC BoT members are taking note.
best regards,
john