Subject: StandICT.eu funding on offer

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 07:59:53 +1200

StandICT.eu is the “ICT Standardisation Observatory and Support Facility in Europe” and "through a series of 10 Open Calls, will provide 3 million Euro through a cascade grant process to support and incentivise participation of European standardisation specialists in key international and global SDOs and consortia."

Details here: https://www.standict.eu/standicteu-2023-3rd-open-call

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 08:11:29 +1200

Sorry, just been pointed out to me that this post is not within the charter for ietf@ietf. Won’t do that again!

Jay

> On 7/05/2021, at 7:59 AM, Jay Daley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 14:28:13 +0200 (CEST)

>     Il 06/05/2021 22:11 Jay Daley <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 
> 
Where should this kind of notice be posted, then? If the IETF wants to increase participant diversity, it is very important that opportunities to subsidize participation costs are made widely available and advertised throughout the community.

--

Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[email-masked] mailto:[email-masked] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 11:06:33 -0400

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 8:28 AM Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Sorry, just been pointed out to me that this post is not within the
> charter for ietf@ietf. Won’t do that again!
>
> Where should this kind of notice be posted, then? If the IETF wants to
> increase participant diversity, it is very important that opportunities to
> subsidize participation costs are made widely available and advertised
> throughout the community.
>

Indeed. Looking at the charter, this post might not fall within it, but to
me it seems a: like a useful/interesting post, and b: we need a place where
we can "chat" - a community requires interaction with other members; only
having approved topics/conversations separates us into cliques...

W

> [email-masked]

-- 
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 16:14:16 +0100

Hiya,

> having approved topics/conversations separates us into cliques...

+1 - I think a pointer to that funding scheme, or any
equivalent scheme that's as relevant is just fine so
long it doesn't happen too often. The difference here
is that the standict scheme is directly relevant to
IETF participation so it's highly relevant for anyone
who might need money to help them participate.

S.

PS: To be open - I got some dosh from a precursor
scheme a few years back that covered my travel to IETF
meetings for a bit.

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 11:14:46 -0400

Jay,

I disagree about the charter call. The mailman description for the general
IETF list is "This mailing list is for general topics of discussion
relating to items within the IETF community. This is a public list for the
IETF community to use. Any items posted are subject to the rules of BCP 78
and BCP 79." This posting certainly fits that description, it's very much
of interest to the community.

Please do it again!

Cheers,
Andy

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:12 PM Jay Daley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> StandICT.eu is the “ICT Standardisation Observatory and Support Facility
> in Europe” and "through a series of 10 Open Calls, will provide 3 million
> Euro through a cascade grant process to support and incentivise
> participation of European standardisation specialists in key international
> and global SDOs and consortia."
>

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 10:26:03 -0500

On 7 May 2021, at 10:14, Andrew G. Malis wrote:

> I disagree about the charter call. The mailman description for the 
> general IETF list is "This mailing list is for general topics of 
> discussion relating to items within the IETF community. This is a 
> public list for the IETF community to use. Any items posted are 
> subject to the rules of BCP 78 and BCP 79." This posting certainly 
> fits that description, it's very much of interest to the community.

But it doesn't fit the IETF list charter, RFC 3005:

     Inappropriate postings include:

     - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
       sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.

I'm not saying that we can't decide to allow postings like this; it 
might be a very good thing. But we need to explicitly make that 
decision, and explain why this one is OK and other similar posts might 
still be problematic (if so).

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 12:53:38 -0400

--On Friday, May 7, 2021 10:26 -0500 Pete Resnick
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I disagree about the charter call. The mailman description
>> for the  general IETF list is "This mailing list is for
>> general topics of  discussion relating to items within the
>> IETF community. This is a  public list for the IETF community
>> to use. Any items posted are  subject to the rules of BCP 78
>> and BCP 79." This posting certainly  fits that
>> description, it's very much of interest to the community.
> 
> I'm not saying that we can't decide to allow postings like
> this; it might be a very good thing. But we need to explicitly
> make that decision, and explain why this one is OK and other
> similar posts might still be problematic (if so).

FWIW, I concur with Pete.
If the "real" criterion is going to be "well, I think that is
interesting and/or helpful or "the ExecDir gets to post these
things but ordinary mortals do not".. well we just should not do
things that way.  Remember that rules like that came into being
because of concerns about assorted trolls and event promoters
creating excessive noise on the list.   Even though that was
clearly not the case with this announcement, allowing it without
an explicit decision and clear rules invites abuse and endless
debates about edge cases and whether a particular posting is
appropriate.

Two suggestions:

(1) If the LLC considers if sufficiently useful and Jay and/or
Greg think it is worth the time, put up a web page somewhere on
which they, at their discretion, can post announcements that
they think would be of interest to the community.  If people
could subscribe to a notification list that announces changes
when they are made, so far the better (as long as that list is
not ietf@ or ietf-announce@.  People wanting to announce such an
event could send the announcement to them and that would make
whatever decisions are appropriate. [1]

(2) Or, if the IESG thinks this is important enough, allow such
postings as long as two ADs approve of it.  Two to reduce
possible pressure on individual ADs from their employers,
professional affiliations, and friends, to reduce any possible
doubt about motivations, and to make everything a tad more
transparent.

   john

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 16:48:04 -0700

Hi Pete,
At 08:26 AM 07-05-2021, Pete Resnick wrote:
>decision, and explain why this one is OK and other similar posts 
>might still be problematic (if so).

Please see 
https://2023.standict.eu/standard-repository/ietf-rfc7973-assignment-ethertype-ipv6-low-power-wireless-personal-area-0 
It is debatable whether the sentence from the mailing list charter 
applies in this case.

The burden is on the person complaining about a message to explain 
why it is not okay.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Amelia Andersdotter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 13:16:55 +0200

On 5/7/21 6:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> things but ordinary mortals do not"..

I disagree with the two interventions above based on RFC3005: "The IETF 
discussion list, [email-masked], /.../ is the most general IETF mailing 
list, [where] considerable latitude is allowed."

A short, one-sentence message from the IETF executive director outlining 
an opportunity to fund participation in IETF meetings must reasonably 
fit within "considerable latitude".

-- 
^\...~...~...~...~...~.../^
Amelia Andersdotter
IETF SHMOO WG Co-Chair
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/shmoo/about/

Director of Strategic Initiatives, CENTR
www.centr.org
^\...~...~...~...~...~.../^

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 13:38:32 +0200

>   sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.

The English I learned doesn’t make an announcement of the form “here are people offering money so you can continue your IETF work” an "Announcement of conferences, events, or activities”.  Maybe me announcing that I wrote another version of some piece of software that implements IETF protocols and plan to continue doing that, does, much more so, but nobody would complain about that.

“Considerable latitude”, as Amelia said…

(And, as usual, the detection of this as a charter violation created an order of magnitude more noise than the pointer itself.)

Thanks, Jay, for the pointer.
(They didn’t work for me in a previous incarnation.
Probably EU reviewer syndrome — because everybody who knows something about a subject also has a conflict of interest in that space, the reviews aren’t always optimal in quality.)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 12:00:22 -0500

First let me say that I don't care what guidelines we use for posting to 
the list; I think Jay's original message was probably reasonable to 
post. I was simply responding to Andy's comment that his message 
"certainly fits" the description of the list; it's not "certain", and 
certainly not to the unnamed person who commented to Jay that it didn't. 
All I meant was that we should have a real discussion about whether or 
not it fit and write down our conclusion somewhere so that we don't need 
to have this discussion again.

That said:

On 7 May 2021, at 18:48, S Moonesamy wrote:

> The burden is on the person complaining about a message to explain why 
> it is not okay.

On 8 May 2021, at 6:38, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> (And, as usual, the detection of this as a charter violation created 
> an order of magnitude more noise than the pointer itself.)

Using words like "burden" and "charter violation" isn't helpful and 
makes this sound like some sort of legal exercise. There are no burdens 
of proof here; we're trying to be polite to one another and have some 
guidelines to help people do that.

> The English I learned doesn’t make an announcement of the form 
> “here are people offering money so you can continue your IETF 
> work” an "Announcement of conferences, events, or activities”.

The main page that Jay pointed to looks to me, at least at first glance, 
to be an announcement of an activity not sponsored or endorsed by ISOC 
or the IETF. In this case, it sounds like one that it would be good for 
IETF folks to know about, and we might agree ones like this in the 
future should not be looked sideways at. Are we OK with all Internet 
technology grant announcements on this list? What about job 
opportunities?

Again, I'm only suggesting it's a good idea to come to some agreement 
about what's reasonable and what's not.

> Maybe me announcing that I wrote another version of some piece of 
> software that implements IETF protocols and plan to continue doing 
> that, does, much more so, but nobody would complain about that.

If it had instructions about how to buy the latest version, perhaps with 
an "IETF Member Discount", and pointers to your other wonderful products 
available on your website, I bet you would get complaints. :-)

> “Considerable latitude”, as Amelia said…

I'm all for it. So let's just decide what's reasonable and what's not.

pr

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 13:19:34 -0400

--On Saturday, May 8, 2021 13:16 +0200 Amelia Andersdotter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I disagree with the two interventions above based on RFC3005:
> "The IETF discussion list, [email-masked], /.../ is the most
> general IETF mailing list, [where] considerable latitude is
> allowed."
> 
> A short, one-sentence message from the IETF executive director
> outlining an opportunity to fund participation in IETF
> meetings must reasonably fit within "considerable latitude".
>...

> IETF SHMOO WG Co-Chair

But that, IMO, takes us into a much more difficult place.  While
Jay is entitled to his personal opinions --and I have found they
are usually useful to listen to-- the moment the IETF Executive
Director starts making decisions about what is, or is not,
appropriate on [email-masked], we are, again IMO, halfway down
the slippery slops toward the LLC regulating and interfering in
the standards process.

YMMD and obviously does, but I wish you would avoid explicitly
identifying yourself as a WG Chair when you express them,
something that normally implies giving your position extra
weight.

best, 
  john

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 15:57:13 -0400

I was the unnamed person who pointed out the guidelines to Jay.

These days, there are literally 100s of conferences, funding 
opportunities, committee sessions, and other standards bodies that play 
in the internet network space. (I myself get something on the order of 
1-2 invitations a month to review conference papers from wildly diverse 
conferences)   A decision was made at least 20 years ago to keep those 
off of the IETF list unless they were sponsored or endorsed by the IETF 
or ISOC to keep the focus of the list on us rather than making it yet 
another mailing list for mass solicitation.

I.e., there's a reason that ICANN DNS symposiums are announced on the 
DNSOP list rather than the IETF list.

In the instant case, the IESG  or IAB could have made the decision that 
this was an "endorsed" item and noted it as such and had Jay publish it 
on their behalf.  This wasn't what happened though.

If anyone has something that they think maybe of interest, but probably 
falls afoul of the clause cited - send it to Jay and ask him to check 
whether the IESG or IAB is willing to endorse it.  Otherwise, I hope 
you'll refrain from using the list to publicize non-IETF activities.

Later, Mike

On 5/8/2021 1:00 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> First let me say that I don't care what guidelines we use for posting 
> to the list; I think Jay's original message was probably reasonable to 
> certainly not to the unnamed person who commented to Jay that it 
> didn't. All I meant was that we should have a real discussion about 
> whether or not it fit and write down our conclusion somewhere so that 
> we don't need to have this discussion again.
>
> That said:
>
> makes this sound like some sort of legal exercise. There are no 
> burdens of proof here; we're trying to be polite to one another and 
> have some guidelines to help people do that.
>
>> The English I learned doesn’t make an announcement of the form “here 
>> are people offering money so you can continue your IETF work” an 
>> "Announcement of conferences, events, or activities”.
>
> The main page that Jay pointed to looks to me, at least at first 
> glance, to be an announcement of an activity not sponsored or endorsed 
> by ISOC or the IETF. In this case, it sounds like one that it would be 
> good for IETF folks to know about, and we might agree ones like this 
> in the future should not be looked sideways at. Are we OK with all 
> Internet technology grant announcements on this list? What about job 
> opportunities?
>
> If it had instructions about how to buy the latest version, perhaps 
> with an "IETF Member Discount", and pointers to your other wonderful 
> products available on your website, I bet you would get complaints. :-)
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 16:40:23 -0700

Hi Pete, John,
At 10:00 AM 08-05-2021, Pete Resnick wrote:
>All I meant was that we should have a real discussion about whether 
>or not it fit and write down our conclusion somewhere so that we 
>don't need to have this discussion again.

I exchanged a few emails with some students from Europe about a 
decade ago.  They encountered an attendance problem because of 
funding.  The funding offer could be advantageous to both the IETF 
and the few students/participants receiving funding.  Sending funding 
offers is usually frowned upon as that is not the purpose of this 
mailing list.  However, the interaction on the topic is more 
important than figuring out whether the message fits within the 
charter.  It would be useful to write down something if there was a 
recurring problem.

>the slippery slops toward the LLC regulating and interfering in

Yes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 11:33:00 +0200 (CEST)

> Il 08/05/2021 19:00 Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 

For clarity, StandICT is not a generic Internet technology grant covering expenses to develop a technology, which may include IETF costs but also many others. StandICT is a program specifically aimed at covering the costs of attending Internet standardization organizations, including the IETF.

I understand and share the sensitivity on not allowing "advertising" on this list, but I think that information about programs specifically designed to cover the costs of attending the IETF should be declared in topic, at least in terms of an announcement with pointers.

Optionally, this could even be extended to announcements about programs, tools and opportunities that could foster more diversity in the IETF, though that may prove too vague and open to abuse. I would dare to say that we could require such announcements to be vetted by the Executive Director in advance, but I'm sure that some will find that too centralized :-)