From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no]
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
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.
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.)
The reason I didn't name them is that the identity of the company concerned
is not that relevant. Nor is the problem what they are doing but our
reliance on it. If you add in the other major companies in the same sector
(and thus likely to share fortunes) the reliance is even greater and
increasing.
The reason I do not want to go down the trade show route is not because I
dislike trade shows, it is because the business model is very strongly
affected by the business cycle. The first thing to go in a downturn is
training, the next is the trade shows. The likes of COMDEX live for two
business cycles at most.
Since you have asked for direct talk: Your move to Google is an example of
the type of high level influence broking that major industry players can
afford. I have no problem with Google making these moves and the IETF is one
of the forums where I have been actively encouraging Google participation.
Participation is a dilectic experience. I expect the IETF to influence
Google to a far greater extent than Google influences the IETF. I expect
both influences to be net positive to both sides.
The point here is that it is much more expensive for a company to go around
hiring key players in an organization than to sponsor a meeting and doing so
will inevitably give them far more influence than putting up a table and
sticking a banner over it. I think that the fears of undue influence are to
say the least overblown.
I did actually voice concern about vendors selling 'shiny geek toys' to a
vulnerable audience known to be ill equiped to resist.
We could probably make some money off a bookshop or two. There are several
publishers who have regularly attended IETF to recruit authors. In short
there are plenty of ways that a limited exhibition could drive revenue
without being an issue.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf