Internet DRAFT - draft-arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts
draft-arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Arkko
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational February 28, 2017
Expires: September 1, 2017
Thoughts on IETF Finance Arrangements
draft-arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts-00.txt
Abstract
This short memo outlines the author's thoughts of current status and
future development questions around IETF's financing mechanisms.
This memo is also input for discussion that the IETF community should
have. The memo is the first part of the author's goal to document
the status and various challenges and opportunities associated with
the IETF Administrative Activity (IASA), in the context of the so
called "IASA 2.0" project.
The memo has no particular official standing, nor does it claim to
represent more than the authors' thinking at the time of writing.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Arkko Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IETF Finance Thoughts February 2017
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The purpose of the IETF is to "... produce high quality, relevant
technical and engineering documents that influence the way people
design, use, and manage the Internet ..." [RFC3935]. This is of
course only possible when the organisation offers a platform:
process, and basic services that allow IETF participants to work
Internet technology in an effective way. One part of this platform
is sufficient funding to run those services, maintain archives, have
web presence, have staff that can do the final publication editing,
etc.
The IETF's funding situation is generally in good shape: The IETF has
multiple sources of funds, from corporate supporters to participants
to Internet Society and to donors interested ensuring in the long-
term sustainability of the efforts.
But there are issues as well, such as a rising cost trend in a
setting where the basis of our funding from attendees and sponsors is
staying largely the same.
And, it is always good to evaluate our arrangements, and the ongoing
"IASA 2.0" effort to assess the IETF Administrative Activity (IASA)
organisation is a good moment to do this analysis [RFC4071] [IASA20].
For the finance aspects as well as other organisational matters.
This short memo outlines the author's view of the current status and
future development questions around IETF's financing mechanisms. The
memo is the first part of the author's goal to document the status
and various challenges and opportunities associated with IASA.
This memo is also input for discussion that the IETF community should
have.
Arkko Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IETF Finance Thoughts February 2017
The memo has no particular official standing, nor does it claim to
represent more than the author's thinking at the time of writing.
2. Discussion
Some of the trends affecting our financing arrangements include:
Community size is stable
The size of the IETF community both in participants and
participating companies has been relatively stable for over ten
years. This is by itself neither good or bad, and it reflects
IETF's role in the world. While the Internet technology business
keeps growing tremendously, standards for core Internet technology
are only one part of the overall picture. That is a very
important part, and one where there has been a lot of activity.
But one should not necessarily expect a tremendous growth.
Continuously rising costs
On the other hand, costs for running the operation have increased,
and are predicted to increase. This is partially due to external
cost pressures, for instance the of cost hotel services such as
meeeting space continue to increase. But the trend is also
affected by the need to provide more services, for instance
related to remote attendance or tools migrating to the
secretariat.
Over-the-net participation
The ability to work together without being in the same place
continues to improve; global communities can be built based on -
at least to large extent - over-the-net collaboration. As
engineers working on real-time communication among other things,
this trend should be apparent to IETF participants. This is not
to say that in-person meetings will cease to be useful.
This will affect one leg of the IETF's funding structure:
participant fees. Even where remote participation might be an
activity that can have a fee associated with it, such fees are
likely smaller than those in physical meetings.
While the IETF financing models have recently started evolving,
they are still based primarily on meeting fees and meeting-based
sponsorship. It would be useful to build also sponsorship models
that allow supporting the IETF's work, not just a given meeting
for instance.
Arkko Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IETF Finance Thoughts February 2017
Professionally run services
IETF services are increasingly run on a professional, commercial
model, as overall number of services continues to grow, volunteer
tools are left to be run by the secretariat as the volunteers move
on to develop more tools, etc.
Different types of sponsors
There are many willing supporters of the IETF's work. But it is
important to recognise how they -- due to their background or in
some cases even legal or accounting reasons -- have different sets
of expectations.
It is useful to cater for different classes of donors, for
instance both large corporations capabable of, for instance,
hosting a meeting, as well as smaller corporations still
interested in supporting the IETF but unable to take a hosting
commitment.
Similarly, most corporate sponsorships are typically to support
the current activities. Meeting sponsorships are an example of
this. On the other hand, IETF Endowment donations are an example
of a more long-term support for the long-term. Both models are
necessary, and useful.
Finally, the IETF is backed by Internet Society, and the support
of the IETF is one of core missions that the organisation was
founded for.
The sponsor experience
While there has been a lot of support for, e.g., meeting hosting,
getting support for the full sponsorship program is not easy.
The value to sponsors is not always obvious, the IETF community is
sometimes critical or unappreciative, and the same sponsors get
tapped again and again for many related but different
opportunities.
Also, and this may sound obvious, but the IETF should be open for
getting sponsorship from the different sources. There is one area
that we are not as open as we should be: Traditionally, meeting
sponsorship has been sought from the location that a meeting is
at. However, this may not be the best strategy when a significant
fraction of these sponsorships come from global multinational
companies.
Arkko Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IETF Finance Thoughts February 2017
A corollary to the desire for supporting multiple different
sponsorship models is that the IETF is clear on what the options
give, clear how they benefit the IETF. As the number of options
have grown, we have not always been clear enough, or provided
answers that were aligned with the desires of the sponsors. For
instance, the IETF Endowment was re-specified in 2015-2016 to make
it about support of the IETF rather than general-purpose support
for Internet openness and technology development. But work
remains in ensuring that all sponsorship options are crystal
clear.
Finally, the basis for any financial involvement of the sponsors
needs to be viewed in terms of the value that the IETF provides
for the participants and the supporters. Articulating that is
important, and this needs work from the IETF. Although again, the
value is probably slightly different for different sponsors.
Ultimately, value is the one that ensures we continue to draw the
participants, and attracts sponsors in a thoughtful and long-term
fashion, and helps tune IETF activities to meet the needs of the
community.
Expectations on the IETF
Some factors in our environment are changing, and the role of the
IETF is also evoling in some ways. For instance, the IETF Trust
took a role in managing IANA-related IPR in 2016.
3. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Kathy Brown, Andrew Sullivan, Ray
Pelletier, Leslie Daigle, Alissa Cooper, Gonzalo Camarillo, Greg
Kapfer, and Sean Turner for interesting discussions in this space.
4. Informative References
[IASA20] Arkko, J., "Proposed Project: IETF Administrative Support
2.0", November 2016 (https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/11/
proposed-project-ietf-administrative-support-2-0/).
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.
[RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>.
Arkko Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IETF Finance Thoughts February 2017
Author's Address
Jari Arkko
Ericsson
Kauniainen 02700
Finland
Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net
Arkko Expires September 1, 2017 [Page 6]
