Subject: RE: Sponsors and influence (Re: Making IETF happening in differentregions)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:48:03 -0800

> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> One of the services that ISOC provides to the IETF is a layer 
> of indirection for sponsors; they give money into a pool 
> administered by ISOC (and get a seat on the ISOC AC in 
> return), but the procedures make it pretty clear that they do 
> not get any direct influence over the IETF standardization 
> process that way.

Any sponsorship would in my case be justified on either the marketing budget
or the recruitment budget. The IETF has a lot of students, sole proprietor
consultants etc. There is a significant value in putting the brand out in
the venue.

There are certain aspects of the company I would like to get out to the IETF
membership that might possibly change their view of some technical
decisions. For example some pictures of what the back end of the DNS
registry looks like might be a useful perspective shift for the folk who
think that the .com registry still runs on BIND running off a Motorola based
SunOS workstation on Mark Koster's desk. 

I think that this type of activity is what most people would expect,
particularly given that the linkage from the event planning to the working
group chairs is pretty weak. Anyone whipping for sponsorship is going to be
whipping the current and/or recently retired IAB and IESG members to lobby
their own employers. I don't see WG chairs being swayed too easily there.

A VeriSign employee was chairing the IAB at the time that Randy Bush decided
to single handedly sink chances of deploying DNSSEC for at least five years.
Holding the chair made it harder to bring influence to bear, not easier. I
don't see how this would be any different.

The current funding model makes the IETF disproportionately reliant on one
single company that currently employs far more ADs and working group chairs
than any other. It also has a habit of recruiting through the IETF. If that
company were to have an unexpected earnings shortfall the effect on the IETF
could be very significant. Given that it is a growth company and given that
setbacks are inevitable over the course of five or ten years there should be
a real concern here. 

The IETF is already effectively sponsored heavily by industry. 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:06:31 -0600

> setbacks are inevitable over the course of five or ten years there should be
I think you're talking about cisco, and I think the contribution is 
between 10 and 15% of total IETF effort, depending on which metric you use.

If you were thinking of someone else, my apologies - I've observed that 
in a lot of cases, people make oblique references that not all 
participants in the IETF will catch; I believe that naming them 
unambiguously helps clear communications (while not naming them when 
we're discussing principles helps keep the discussion from being 
excessively partisan - so it requires a bit of judgment.)

                       Harald (who works for Google)