On Nov 14, 2010, at 10:50 PM, SM wrote: >> enough, because the corruption that we're trying to solve would >> require collaboration between the IETF chair and the IAOC. I would >> say that the risk is low enough that privacy trumps transparency. > > As you used the term "corruption", I'll go with it. The corruption > can be solved by charging everyone, including NOC and hosts, for > tickets.
I don't think charging hosts would matter that much. They'd just pay more in tickets and less in sponsorships. But as far as NOC and volunteers are concerned, they definitely deserve the tickets. If we had to hire network people with that skill level for a week, we'd have to pay a lot more than $650. > It is likely that such a solution will increase meeting > costs and decrease sponsorship revenue. I'd say very likely. > The price of the ticket may > have to be increased. This looks more like the law of unintended > consequences instead of corruption. Whenever you give anyone power, there's a risk of corruption. You can never eliminate this risk, but you can reduce it. Reducing the risk costs. It costs money, privacy and time. The same supervision can also reduce waste (such as giving comp tickets to people who don't deserve them). With just a single discretionary comp ticket (or even if it were 10), the waste reduction is a moot point. There's no point in adding any more supervision. And as for corruption, I believe the current safeguards are more than enough to put our minds at ease. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
