ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: SDO vs academic conference, was poster sessions

2011-01-11 11:52:45
At issue though is that these individuals get paid (sponsored) by
someone, either directly or indirectly by corporations and/or
governments.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Eric Burger
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:27 AM
To: Alessandro Vesely
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: SDO vs academic conference, was poster sessions

Speaking personally, with none of my official hats on, I would offer the
IETF is *only* an SDO.

There are no sponsoring organizations, because the IETF is a collection
of individuals.  No sponsor needed.  For that matter, some individuals
consider some sponsors toxic, so sometimes having a sponsor is a
negative.

When one mentions 'finding a problem and proposing a solution,' if the
problem is with an Internet protocol or an Internet protocol can solve
the problem, then the IETF is the place to take the work.  However, if
the problem is with Internet operations, then a place like the INET
(ISOC-sponsored) or NANOG/APNOG/AfNOG/EOF would be a better place to go.
If the problem is about domain administration or governance, then ICANN
is where to go.  If the question is about governance, then your local
ISOC chapter or IGF would be a better place to go.

Parochially and from a purely self-serving perspective, I would offer
the Internet Society has *a* I* organizational coordination role.
However, before the flames start from long-time I* participants, I would
also offer that Internet governance is BY DEFINITION distributed and ANY
organization that claims to be to be the center of the Internet
universe/governance/technology is both delusional and probably does not
have the support of ALL constituents (users, manufacturers, operators,
and governments).  I would offer the IETF has near universal support for
producing protocols from the global constituency, and near no support
for anything else.

On another one of your questions, I would offer that for better or
worse, the IETF ignores the question "who is the consumer of IETF work
product" at a formal level.  The IETF does not produce protocols for
governments.  The IETF does not produce protocols for operators.  The
IETF does not produce protocols for vendors.  Rather, as a collection of
volunteer individuals, the IETF produces protocols the individuals are
WILLING to produce.  This is microeconomics at its best.  For people to
volunteer literally millions of dollars worth of engineering time per
year to the IETF, the IETF has to be relevant.  However, rather than
being relevant because some government says it is relevant or being
relevant because an industry consortium says it is relevant, the IETF is
relevant because it has a history of producing relevant work.  Because
of that history, people (individuals!) bring important, relevant work to
the IETF.  Presuming other INDIVIDUALS see that work as being important,
it gets worked on.

The fastest way to find out if ones work is relevant to the Internet
*protocol* community, and note this is NOT necessarily the Internet
community at large, is to bring it to the IETF.  If it is relevant work,
it gets worked on.  You do not have to be from a member state, a member
vendor, a member operator, a member institution.  You just need an email
address.

FInally, one of my personal goals is to keep reminding folks that the
IETF does engineering, NOT research.  If one has an idea that is not
fully baked, the IRTF is a great place to bring the idea to where one
can get the benefits of experienced IETF people without the drawbacks of
an SDO.


On Jan 11, 2011, at 6:24 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:

On 10/Jan/11 23:38, Fred Baker wrote:
Personally, call me stuck-in-the-mud, but this isn't an academic
conference in which grad students are advertising for a professor
that might be interested in mentoring them or a sponsor might fund
their research. This is an SDO, and internet drafts are what any
other SDO calls "contributions" or "work in progress". I would far
rather have people who ant to talk about something contribute an
internet draft on their topic, and talk with other people about
their ideas - whether on working group lists or other places. For
those of us that *do* participate, it seems to mostly work.

OTOH, for those of us who don't participate, it doesn't :-)

My ignorance of IETF's inner functioning is so deep that I cannot even
tell what is the equivalent of a mentoring professor or a sponsoring
organization within the IETF, let alone finding one.  As an Internet
user, I may have a problem, hypothesize possible causes, and wait for
solutions to be proposed or formulate a tentative solution myself.
The question is, is the IETF the natural referent of such occurrences?
Does the "I" in its name promote it as the universal coordinator for
Internet related issues?

I think a negative answer would affirm the view of the IETF as an SDO
only.  This would rise further questions such as who are its customers
--possibly the IGF or similar assemblies-- and what kind of mechanisms
do they use to order what has to be standardized and how.

A positive answer would imply the IETF is something more than an SDO.
Possibly the embryo of a technocracy.  That would call for more
dendritic links to the Internet at large.  For example, someone
proposed to add more entries and comments to the IETF's Outcomes Wiki.
By symmetry, some means to campaign for input topics may also be
desirable --not necessarily poster sessions, just something that may
motivate outsiders to join the meetings.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>