I had the pleasure of meeting Vint Cerf last august when he visited University of Nebraska to talk about the history of the Internet and his involvement (him and Bob Kahn wrote the whitepaper on TCP), internet policy / issues, problems with network security, and challenges with modern network engineering. He discussed in length how he would re-design TCP in the context of inter-planetary networking -- it was an incredibly fascinating talk.
I have met very few people who are as informed, passionate, and enjoyable to listen to as Dr. Cerf. His depth of knowledge of software policy issues is astounding, from international networking standards / last August's ITU meetings to the future issues of bit rot and data standardization. Overall, nice move by the Obama administration.
Licklider knew engineers do what they are told and nothing else. So: give them a really big project or else they won't implement beyond the specifications. It seemed to worked since the Internet has been scalable. Alan Kay, every year, talks about Licklider's intergalactic network in his history of computing talk: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alan+kay
Their main practical function is to serve as the steering board of the National Science Foundation. They meet a few times a year to vote on major decisions, e.g. which grant initiatives will go forward or be axed, appointments of program managers, budget allocations between research areas, changes in strategic direction, that kind of thing.
However, no matter your argument the chance of influencing people on HN is quite low. There is a reason why terrorist groups seek out engineers (via Rory Sutherland): http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/200... Very few of them would put their trust on the free market. What if the market chooses to develop food/shelter technologies instead of space exploration? We can't have that! (sarcasm)
This would be a lot more likely if the House and Senate science and technology committees were seen as desirable appointments. This is not presently the case for a host of reasons.
These positions aren't salaried, so I would guess he'd retain his current job. They do get paid a modest amount on days where they're engaged in NSF business, but at a $524 per-day rate [1] and only about six meetings a year, I doubt he's going to be living on that.
I have met very few people who are as informed, passionate, and enjoyable to listen to as Dr. Cerf. His depth of knowledge of software policy issues is astounding, from international networking standards / last August's ITU meetings to the future issues of bit rot and data standardization. Overall, nice move by the Obama administration.