Now that ISOC/PIR funding is more overtly arms-length, and ICANN also has a large success problem with funds, is it impossible to imagine some kind of non-IETF, non-LLC entity which decides on merit and other bases to fund attendance, because of its goals? Whats the difference between a hypothetical Keith (sorry keith) asking ISOC in some form, to cofund his attendance for reasons which mutually support their goals, And Cisco or Huawei funding their staff to attend, to promote a draft? I think what I'm saying is that I think the higher goal of open, free-to-source and free-to-develop standards is a huge high goal, and keeping attendance cost at IETF f2f low is a good hard goal, and we should focus on cost recovery even while we have to talk about profit and customer in purely utility terms to discuss things like charges and value, But we don't have to vest *ourselves* with funding some people, when there are other people with a money success problem, and goals in their own charter which can be met by funding attendance here. If the IETF did standards in vaccine-safety protocol, you bet Melinda and Bill Gates would be pumping money . into attendance, right? And, now we have ubiquitous encryption issues, I find it sensible and pleasing that state agencies like GCHQ are in attendance and co-funding people to come here. Its not like we didn't always have NATO funded people, or other externally funded people. Many people I know from IETF past spent long hours filling in US government contractor/consultant paperwork to justify their time at the meeting. I am sympathetic to what I think I understand of Keiths problem btw. If I was as active as he was in developong things, and un-funded, I would feel very unhappy about the situation too. G On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 4:29 AM Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/29/19, 1:16 AM, "ietf on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > My understanding is that IETF LLC's jobs include fund-raising, so we do > have this issue on somebody's to-do list. > > You are correct, and it is on the LLC's to do list! > > Jason (for the LLC) > >
