It's interesting that it's seen by quite a few
people who have responded to this idea that an AD who is paid by
the IETF would be _less_ neutral than an AD who is paid by some
company that's sending them to the IETF. I would like to think
that the ADs that nomcom appoints would be neutral in either
case, but it seems to me that the incentives for an AD to play
favorites are worse, not better, if the AD works for a company
than if they are paid by the IETF, all other factors being
equal. Of course, if companies that want to buy ADs were able
to do so, that would be bad, but if the funding commitment is
made in advance of AD selection, I don't see how that would
happen. Maybe I'm just naive?
Where is the skin in the game with a funded AD? It would appear at
first glance that the incentive would be to attempt to remain in the
role as long as being involved in the IETF was the goal. 