The bottom line is there has to be a return-on-investment for the
sponsors. Microeconomics works, believe me. If we do the socialist
thing and try to bend the market (impose a bunch of impossible to follow
rules), then we're either not going to get funded or we are not going to
be happy with the results.
I would offer we offer tangible, LIMITED, benefits to sponsors. As has
been pointed out ad nauseum, the IETF has effective sponsorship if you
look at the collective employers of people who devote close to 110% of
their time to the IETF. As has also been stated elsewhere, since these
people are "never home," the sinister conspiracy theories don't really
hold water. Then again, there is the "appearance of impropriety" that
does exist.
Let's just be overt, take the money, have the cool geeky toys, and be
done with it.
FWIW, I looked at the Nokia 770, said, "It is almost as crippled as my
Treo 650 w.r.t. memory and processor, costs twice as much (at IETF
prices!), and doesn't even have WAN capability." They took their
chances, and lost. That said, I would have taken one for free in the
lucky draw ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme(_at_)multicasttech(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:34 AM
To: jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Moving from "hosts" to "sponsors"
I think that the IETF neglects (or, rather, has neglected in the
past) many possible
opportunities for sponsorship. That implies that increasing the income
from sponsorship should be possible.
People who are concerned with this issue should talk (or email) our
IAD, Ray Pelletier, who
has a number of ideas in this area (and who reads this list).
If people feel that some sorts of sponsorship are not
appropriate, I am sure that Ray would like that input too.
In the new IASA / NeuStar system, there is no choice but to be
realistic with
cost figures. Note that the registration fee and the attendance both
went
up with this meeting, which of course means that revenue increased. I
actually think
that, with revenue and sponsorship both increasing, the IETF should be
able to improve the meeting support and experience even more in the
future.
Regards
Marshall
On Mar 24, 2006, at 12:52 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more
in the
other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.
Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe
trying to get
more from the industry (or other kind of sponsors) for each meeting
will be
really difficult.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Andy Bierman <ietf(_at_)andybierman(_dot_)com>
Responder a: <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:34:00 -0800
Para: <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>
CC: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>,
"ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
<jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>, Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com>
Asunto: Re: Moving from "hosts" to "sponsors"
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to
subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's
what it
works out to be....
This view can be mapped to a classic model that would have
significant
benefits for the IETF:
A "host" gets all sorts of marketing leverage out of the role in
producing an IETF.
There is nothing that requires that the event site management
effort be
coupled with a particular host's venue.
If we moved to a model of having companies provide sponsorship
funds, in
return for which they get appropriate marketing presence, then we
could
have meeting venue management move to the sort of predictable and
timely
basis -- ie, far enough ahead of time -- that has been a concern for
many years.
Amen! And maybe the meeting fees could actually go down
with enough sponsors. An additional room like the terminal
room (not out in the open) could be used.
Also, the IETF could maintain control of the
network if there were multiple sponsors instead
of a single host. They would not be allowed to ignore
the advice of the NOC team, and let the wireless meltdown
right off the bat.
d/
Andy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be
privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for
the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this information, including
attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf