Subject: RE: Moving from "hosts" to "sponsors"

From: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:18:43 -0400

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:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:34 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
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 <[email-masked]>
>> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
>> Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:34:00 -0800
>> Para: <[email-masked]>
>> CC: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>> <[email-masked]>, Michael StJohns  
>> <[email-masked]>
>> 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
>> [email-masked]
>> 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
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf