IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives

Jon Hudson <jon.hudson@gmail.com> Fri, 14 November 2014 04:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jon.hudson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 91attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 91attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420561A1A68 for <91attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:43:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vcm4eE5Lst7J for <91attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x231.google.com (mail-pa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAC371A1A65 for <91attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id lj1so16501607pab.8 for <91attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:43:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5EY1aVVm8DRxgXupsYTbNWtIx9vQP8sGqcp9/7kfEE8=; b=X7V/0FnTyAILj44S/GyLKw420+bkcMRvxh8D4Y8sDiSzcDU8WPp9NppVdCDvSImj5H QCq03NIygbNsb9VL8Be3aW1JTDP1TuS0+fEuMqFqVKDztAMIgqYNrzTu+olyCkM2bPEr N+n2credg2xyDgxwcDbx8VFJEW+xNe+xw+6tsQ33Q/65fERZlelAMAZo15ImITMRBcdM 0/MajH3ow3AX3xNcgWTup8hDn7fzKXRFWV0qDXJ47ELYZp+w+z7D8DcqPzlPcyMptkg4 UjHao7q+zo+F7hmn20Cv+olgD8xEgrcL+gkpefrtF0LtnaB7QTdWEtKNWfzvzwzM+b2D w36Q==
X-Received: by 10.70.37.164 with SMTP id z4mr7357165pdj.3.1415940207220; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.109.177.157] (mobile-166-176-59-188.mycingular.net. [166.176.59.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fy4sm26191918pbb.42.2014.11.13.20.43.26 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Jon Hudson <jon.hudson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B411)
In-Reply-To: <F4CB1B4F-5681-47B8-B522-2C1CFE8989F6@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:43:26 -1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A461D571-44DD-4A1D-AB7C-6B61C03A2F6E@gmail.com>
References: <CB79E3A1-A560-41A3-90CF-E1302AC6997E@bangj.com> <F4CB1B4F-5681-47B8-B522-2C1CFE8989F6@gmail.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/91attendees/CjHoxGIhlaIxSxqbLf0qXR1DPIw
Cc: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>, "<91attendees@ietf.org>" <91attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives
X-BeenThere: 91attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 91 attendees that have opted in on this list." <91attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/91attendees>, <mailto:91attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/91attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:91attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:91attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/91attendees>, <mailto:91attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 04:43:30 -0000

I would also like the choice of paying more when I can and having the extra go to someone who needs cost assistance. 

Jon

> On Nov 13, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Tom,
> 
>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I know the organizers are trying to do the best they can and they have a lot of demands from us on them for features and great hotel venues but I just noticed the fee increase from $650 to $700 for the next IETF meeting.
>> 
>> This may not seem like much difference to most corporate attendees but it's already a burden for small companies and self employed.
>> 
>> There are some of us that would rather do with less services than pay more.
>> 
>> As far as I'm concerned, you can cut things down to the bare minimum. I can get my own snacks, drinks, breakfast. We can minimize the extra meeting rooms, etc.
>> 
>> I would rather have a greater diversity of companies, individuals, and students than price these people out of the event.
>> 
>> I'm not criticizing the current decisions but just suggesting a different path as an option.
> 
> Thanks for asking this way.  I think we should consider if we are willing to compromise some of what we like to save some money.  For example, we like to have a "single roof" venue where the meeting and hotel rooms are in the same venue.  We might be able to save money by having the meeting in a convention center and have the hotels be some distance away.  It would require folks to walk, taxi, bus, subway, etc. to get there and the choices for lunches would not be as good.  This might lower the IETFs cost for meeting space and the attendee cost for the hotel rooms.  The IAOC does not currently look at these types of venues based on community feedback.
> 
> It would be good to hear from folks if they would like the IAOC to consider other types of venues if it results in lower costs for the IETF and attendees.
> 
> Bob (speaking for myself)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 91attendees mailing list
> 91attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/91attendees

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email