ICNA - ISOC Certified Network Ass..istant ICIE - ISOC Certified IPv4, oops: Internet Expert ICv6 - you get the point Would be happy to help with that training material. I once reviewed wonderfull vendor certification training and testing material on which i was SME, and i was happy to see so many useful questions such as inquiring the hair color of the third bit of be ACME field in the FOOBAR protocoll. And the name of its siblings. Of course, we need to selling IETF re-branded Red Bull cans as the only permitted energy drink during training and testing. On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 03:23:19PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > I agree that Lloyd's model is the wrong one. But there is probably a model > that would work if we had someone with a little commercial savvy. > > What I would do is to talk to folk like the IEEE and BCS and find out how > they fund themselves. I have not been to the BCS HQ but the other > engineering institutes have palatial buildings in Mayfair and the like. > > > No, don't charge for RFCs. That would not work. But training and > accreditation could be the right fit if the business could be run so as to > accumulate a sufficiently large float to weather the inevitable downturns. > > I used to wonder how we could charge $800/day for training courses to > classes of 16. Then the dotcrash came along and I realized it was because > training companies only last one business cycle and then go bust. > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I've been trying to find something in this message with which I > > > disagree. So far, no suck luck. > > > > > >> you could do a bundle of secure subscriptions with T-shirts to really > > >> attract the librarian crowd you're marketing to. They earn less than > > >> you do, and so they value free clothing more. Plus, an even weaker > > >> sense of what might be considered fashionable. > > > > as i wrote to lloyd privately, i think he vastly overestimates the > > sartorial abilities of the average ietf attendee when compared to > > that of librarians. > > > > randy > > > > -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx
