Re: IETF registration fee increase from 2015

I think we are devolving to where the Churchill Maxim applies: “Democracy is 
the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

At one extreme, we see someone wanting to give economic disincentive for 
companies to donate their people to work on open standards. That would leave us 
with… nobody (before one throws stones, I am in the nobody class). At the other 
extreme, we see someone wanting to give strong economic incentive for companies 
to buy influence on the standards process and have our publications reflect the 
will of corporations, not the best, technical choice.

I would offer that funding the IETF via corporate donations,* meeting fees, and 
PIR revenues is the worst way of funding an SDO, except for all the others.


* I am literal about corporate donations being donations (gifts). A lot of IETF 
sponsorship goes through the Internet Society, a U.S. 503(c) entity. If a 
corporation would be getting a direct benefit from donating, that would put the 
Internet Society’s tax status in jeopardy. Thus, we are very careful NOT to 
allow donors to buy influence or get other tangible benefits from their 
donation. Now, corporations rarely (ever?) do something just to feel good. As 
it happens, the fact that the world is better off with a funded IETF and 
corporations are part of the world is OK. Ultimately, a stronger Internet is 
better for these corporations’ selfish interests. However, what it also means 
is that corporations do not get better better - everyone gets the same better.

On Oct 2, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Ray Bellis 
<Ray(_dot_)Bellis(_at_)nominet(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk> wrote:

> On 2 Oct 2014, at 15:21, Abdussalam Baryun 
> <abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> > I see the cost should increase for who use the time slots of the 
> > meeting-time, so the IETF adopted IDs and presentations. I say no 
> > punishment/fess for individuals but add fees for companies presenting or 
> > authoring. I say only companies that have their name on the IETF drafts or 
> > on the presentations. 
> You are kidding, right?
>
> Your proposal as it stands would kill off many employers' participation at 
> IETF stone cold dead.
>
> Also, you forget the one of the IETF's key features is that strictly speaking 
> it is not companies that participate, it is individuals.  Often those 
> individuals are supported through the kind grace of their employers, and to 
> seek to actually charge those employers even more for their employee's highly 
> valuable contributions is frankly batshit crazy.
>
> Ray

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail