Subject: Evolutionizing the IETF

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 05:12:16 -0800

Hello,

I was given the following link at the plenary: 
http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IANA-ietf85-nov2012.pdf  and it turned 
out to be a 404.  Could the IAOC please fix the link?

According to the the IAOC report there was one large interim meeting 
where 38 people attended onsite and 23 attended online.  The event 
resulted in a US$ 18,000 loss.  Can someone comment on what WG 
progress was made [1]?

There is a direct contribution of US $2.2 million by the Internet 
Society next year.  Is the plan to rely on Internet Society subsidies 
or to fix the deficit?  One argument made was that the fees have not 
been increased over the last years.  I'll point out that there hasn't 
been significant increase in paid attendance over the years.  Either 
the IETF is only relevant to the usual folks or else the meetings are 
not made relevant enough for (new) people to attend.

I read http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/IETFreports/ietf85.pdf  It's the 
usual reporting from the RFC Editor.  I would like to suggest posting 
that report a week before the meeting so that people can read it if 
they have the inclination to do so.  I gather that after the RFCFORM 
side-meeting which started with the usual discussion about what to 
discuss about, the *SE have understood that they should not negotiate 
with terrorists. :-)  It would be refreshing if the *SE could "think 
outside the box" and share their thoughts about the RFC Series with 
the community and comment on how they intend to reach out to the 
audience which do not attend IETF meetings.

The IAB report is the usual fare.  Why can't this be posted one week 
before the meeting?  The report mentions several drafts and the 
number of open issues.  That's not interesting.  How about picking 
one issue, explain the IAB angle and select someone who has provided 
feedback on the draft to comment?

NomCom posted the list of candidates for an area to a public non-IETF 
mailing list.  This is a departure from past practice [2].

Harald Alvestrand mentioned IETF 55 [3].  Some people might find the 
slides interesting.

Regards,
-sm

P.S. The audio quality was bad.

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75244.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg07929.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/55/slides/plenary-2/index.html

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:24:38 -0500

> resulted in a US$ 18,000 loss.  Can someone comment on what WG 
I wrote a draft summarizing my experience of the LIM.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jaeggli-interim-observations-03

Given an attendance fee of $100, and an expected attendance of ~70-100 
the expenses were essentially cooked into the experiment from the outset 
in my understanding.
> before the meeting?  The report mentions several drafts and the number 
> of open issues.  That's not interesting.  How about picking one issue, 
> explain the IAB angle and select someone who has provided feedback on 
> the draft to comment?
>
> 2. 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg07929.html

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:41:27 +0000

On 08/11/2012 13:12, SM wrote:
...

> Society next year.  Is the plan to rely on Internet Society subsidies or
> to fix the deficit?  

I think that calling it a deficit is slightly misleading, since we are
a non-profit organisation. One of the reasons that CNRI gave up control
of the IETF Secretariat was because the IETF needed more income than
can be generated by reasonable meeting fees, to operate the various
services that are not directly related to the meetings. If we had to
cover those expenses out of meeting fees, the latter would have to be
more than doubled. Would you like that?

Personally I am very happy that ISOC sees supporting the IETF and the
RFC Editor as part of its mission, and even more happy that it has the
money to do so. I am also very happy that ICANN takes a similar
attitude to the IETF-IANA function.

   Brian

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 08:45:27 -0800

Hi Brian,
>more than doubled. Would you like that?

The IETF is not registered as a non-profit organization.  I'll skip 
the discussion about non-profit as it might be a distraction.

I'll +0 on the question as I am not paying that fee.  Yesterday, John 
Levine asked about meeting fees and the surplus.  Someone pointed out 
that it is not a surplus; it's a deficit.  My comment was about the 
acceptable (please do not ask me to define acceptable :-)) 
fee.  Where's the balance between the fee being charged and 
revenue?  If one has more revenue, one will always find some strong 
argument to do the community a favor by not increasing the meeting fee.

>attitude to the IETF-IANA function.

I doubt that ICANN is doing the IETF a favor by not charging for the 
IETF-IANA function.  According to the IANA report IANA did not meet 
the SLA target in April and June.  I don't have a problem with that 
as the IANA person said that she will do X on Y date and that is what happened.

Regards,
-sm

P.S. Thanks to the person who sent me the correct link for the IANA report