Tim Chown wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:48:19PM -0600, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The results is also better for all (even participants), because the
logistics and local-planning is done more coherently.
I think there's some unfair handwaving in this thread.
One option however would be to seek 'partnerships' between vendors and
the IETF that span more than one meeting. Unless that impacted the
perceived 'neutrality' of the IETF and its standardisation processes.
I suspect that this would indeed be a question.
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.
Among the issues Ray could want to calculate would be:
- the number of new ISOC Platinum members needed to cover the costs
currently borne by the hosts
- the likely income/percieved influence tradeoff of sponsoring the IETF
in smaller chunks (a cookie sponsor, a printer sponsor, a connectivity
sponsor, a WLAN sponsor and a router sponsor....? some of these could be
> 1 meeting long; others could last no longer than a single cookie
break....)
- what other creative options there are for cost/benefit tradeoffs
One option I do NOT want to consider (and which the 770 stand in the
lobby kind of dented a little) is to add a tradeshow to the IETF
meeting. The next steps in that progression have been travelled before -
soon, the tradeshow has a standards adjunct, not the other way around.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf