Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050802095712.03c5ed90@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:00:32 +0200
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>,
	"IETF General Discussion Mailing List" <ietf@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <005001c596ac$c774a960$011aff56@DFNJGL21>
References: <20050801150637.BOEL8199.fep02-app.kolumbus.fi@mta.imail.kolumbus.fi>
	<005001c596ac$c774a960$011aff56@DFNJGL21>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 
Subject: Re: I'm not the microphone police, but ...
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 17:22 01/08/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>That would be fine, if I changed the Newcomer's Orientation :-)
>Spencer
>
>>Spencer,
>>However, many people here are not using their 'individual money' to get=
=20
>>here in Paris. Our name badges list our employers (in most cases).  I=20
>>think its a different issue if I come to the mic and say, 'We at the AC=
ME=20
>>company would like to state, for the record, that we support the foo ba=
r=20
>>proposal and hope it becomes an official RFC as soon as possible.  It=20
>>doesn't bug me one-way or another if folks state their name & who pays=20
>>the bills.

Spencer,
I do not claim that my technical positions are correct, but that they are=
=20
independent and I pretend they prove that IETF is what it claims: by=20
individuals. I pay dearly that independence for years (which has many oth=
er=20
R&D advantages). This permits me, may be clumsily but loyally, to support=
=20
for free the interests of open-source, of small industries, of developing=
=20
countries, of a user-centric architecture. So, what is sad is when I am=20
asked by an IETF establishment member "do you realise how much you _cost_=
=20
to the industry?". Which industry? Not mine in any case. Fostering=20
competition is not favoring my competition.

This is why I suggest the real danger for the IETF is the collusion of=20
large organisations through external consortia to get a market dominance=20
through de facto excluding IETF standardisation and IANA registry control=
.=20
And this is why I suggest the best way to address it is simply to ask for=
=20
the truth, the whole truth.

Participation should be individual, but published details should include=20
who foots the costs, the corporation, the relevant consortia and main=20
customers for consultants. We need everyone, including commercial=20
consortia, individual searchers, non-profits, Government, Academic=20
projects, etc., but, please read RFC 3869, on a equal participation=20
opportunity basis. This is the only way to obtain open, scalable and=20
uniform standards.

I live nearby the Palais des Congr=E8s. But I do not come since I am not=20
invited for free by IASA as we are invited by ICANN. The IETF policy must=
=20
be consistent: there is no reason to pay personal money to help interests=
 I=20
defend to be treated unequal, due to often disclosed but non published=20
affinities. They get there far more than what they pay for, why would I i=
n=20
addition subsidise them?

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf