Re: Sponsors and influence (Re: Making IETF happening in different regions)

[Brian E Carpenter]

Here is a guess at the rule we should impose:

A sponsor donating a sufficiently large amount may have a small booth 
for the sale of a single product that is a) unannounced or has been 
announced within the last [6] months, and b) appropriate for purchase 
and use by individuals.


I really think any attempt to write a rule is doomed. A guideline
or principle would be OK. Such as "It's OK to sell really cool geeky
stuff."  Suggestions for more formal language welcome.

  Brian


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Sponsors and influence (Re: Making IETF happening in different regions)

[Ole Jacobsen]

The "wifi phone booth in Japan [...] wildly popular with attendees," was 
actually at APRICOT in Kyoto, but I know it all blends together after a 
while :-) At $50, vs the retail price of around $350, it was a loss-leader
give-away. I think we'd be happy to get more "free stuff" like that :-)


Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen 
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj


On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> 
> Thinking about this further, I am struck by the fact that the 770 booth and 
> the 
> wifi phone booth in Japan were wildly popular with attendees.  So the concern 
> you raise is a very real and very serious slippery-slope, but portions of 
> that 
> slope seem to be entirely acceptable to the IETF attendees.
> 
> Here is a guess at the rule we should impose:
> 
> A sponsor donating a sufficiently large amount may have a small booth for the 
> sale of a single product that is a) unannounced or has been announced within 
> the 
> last [6] months, and b) appropriate for purchase and use by individuals.
> 
> d/
> -- 
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Sponsors and influence (Re: Making IETF happening in different regions)

[Dave Crocker]

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

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. 



Thinking about this further, I am struck by the fact that the 770 booth and the 
wifi phone booth in Japan were wildly popular with attendees.  So the concern 
you raise is a very real and very serious slippery-slope, but portions of that 
slope seem to be entirely acceptable to the IETF attendees.


Here is a guess at the rule we should impose:

A sponsor donating a sufficiently large amount may have a small booth for the 
sale of a single product that is a) unannounced or has been announced within the 
last [6] months, and b) appropriate for purchase and use by individuals.


d/
--

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Sponsors and influence (Re: Making IETF happening in different regions)

[Keith Moore]

> >> 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.
> 
> To invoke a particularly apt cliche punchline: we are merely haggling about 
> price.

ah yes, but perhaps the point of that joke is that there really is a
difference between a novelty and a commodity.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Sponsors and influence (Re: Making IETF happening in different regions)

[Dave Crocker]

Harald Alvestrand wrote:


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.


To invoke a particularly apt cliche punchline: we are merely haggling about 
price.

The IETF's long-term use of hosts already creates these partnerships, albeit one 
meeting at a time.  Hosts can enjoy very considerable marketing benefits during 
the IETF.


Moving to a sponsorship model permits the IETF to enjoy continue to enjoy the 
financial benefits that we rely on from hosts, but permits us to do vastly more 
rational (and cost-effective) meeting logistics planning.  It well might also 
permit us to obtain enough funds to reduce attendance fees.  By way of a simple 
goal, it might allow meeting fees to be reduced to cover only meeting costs, 
rather than also used for funding the basic Secretariat.


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.


From a marketing standpoint, Hosts currently get a significantly more powerful 
position than you just described.


As for whose name is on the sponsorship check, I don't care.



Among the issues Ray could want to calculate would be:


sounds like some good examples.


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.


Yes, this is an important danger to pay close attention to.

d/
--

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf