Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives
Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> Fri, 14 November 2014 23:50 UTC
Return-Path: <rpelletier@isoc.org>
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 A61441AD407 for <91attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:50:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 443uWsaMKjmC for <91attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:50:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0065.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE0CF1AD37B for <91attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:49:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY2PR06MB236.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.47.24) by BY2PR06MB887.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.222.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.16.15; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 23:49:35 +0000
Received: from t2001067c03700176f191520c0d7d5795.wireless-a.v6.meeting.ietf.org (2001:67c:370:176:f191:520c:d7d:5795) by BY2PR06MB236.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.47.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.16.15; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 23:49:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <1EBC33C7-E093-4166-AA06-95B030AC99C7@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:49:15 -1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <1FC3872D-6C37-4D98-828F-61D693788215@isoc.org>
References: <CB79E3A1-A560-41A3-90CF-E1302AC6997E@bangj.com> <F4CB1B4F-5681-47B8-B522-2C1CFE8989F6@gmail.com> <F96AFD65-DE2A-4A5A-B058-D0B96D96260F@puck.nether.net> <546658E3.2040500@rrbone.net> <1EBC33C7-E093-4166-AA06-95B030AC99C7@cisco.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:67c:370:176:f191:520c:d7d:5795]
X-ClientProxiedBy: AM3PR07CA0048.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.45.176) To BY2PR06MB236.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.47.24)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;UriScan:;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR06MB236;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR06MB236;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 03950F25EC
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(51704005)(24454002)(189002)(377454003)(199003)(23746002)(76176999)(40100003)(104166001)(50226001)(110136001)(101416001)(62966003)(93886004)(50986999)(64706001)(47776003)(89996001)(97736003)(20776003)(77156002)(77096003)(33656002)(102836001)(99396003)(107046002)(57306001)(46102003)(21056001)(120916001)(88136002)(83716003)(87976001)(87286001)(93916002)(86362001)(92566001)(92726001)(4396001)(106356001)(50466002)(122386002)(15975445006)(36756003)(42186005)(31966008)(82746002)(105586002)(19580405001)(19580395003)(95666004)(104396001)(3826002)(460794005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR06MB236; H:t2001067c03700176f191520c0d7d5795.wireless-a.v6.meeting.ietf.org; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR06MB236;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR06MB887;
X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/91attendees/mYKz4nxhK8rIRyX1zQ6yk9X-PTw
Cc: "91attendees@ietf.org" <91attendees@ietf.org>, Dominik Bay <db@rrbone.net>
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 23:50:09 -0000
On Nov 14, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote: > > On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Dominik Bay <db@rrbone.net> wrote: > >> I think IETF is missing the (large) budget coming from membership fees >> and mostly relies on sponsors and meeting fees for the whole meeting. > > Pretty much. We also have a somewhat invisible sponsor in ISOC, which uses money from organizational members supplemented by some PIR funding to fill the gaps; that is the closest thing we have to the membership fees another organization might have. We should note, btw, that the money is not really about “what does it cost to meet in a hotel” as much as “how do we run a certain set of services 24X7X365 and in addition meet several times a year.” Exactly right. Here is the Budget forwarded to the ISOC Board for inclusion in their budget. https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/%172015-IETF-BUDGET-14Oct14.pdf Expenses: $6M Revenues: $4.1M ISOC Direct Contribution: $1.9M Capital Investment: $200K Total ISOC Contribution with Capital Investment: $2.1M Revenues: Reg Fees: $2.3M Sponsorship: $1.6M Hotel Commissions: $100K Expenses: Meetings: $2.2M Secretariat: $1.9m RFC Services: $990K Admin: $500K (IASA, IESG, IAB, IRTF, NomCom, ISE) Tools Maintenance: $125K Trust: $35K G&A: $220K Hope that puts the Reg Fees, corporate Sponsorships, and ISOC’s contribution in perspective. Ray IAD > _______________________________________________ > 91attendees mailing list > 91attendees@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/91attendees
- [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Tom Pusateri
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Jon Hudson
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Toerless Eckert
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Bob Hinden
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Daniel Jewell
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Tom Pusateri
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Livingood, Jason
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Ray Pelletier
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Jared Mauch
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Michael Richardson
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Michael Richardson
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Dominik Bay
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Jon Hudson
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Jon Hudson
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Eggert, Lars
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives ietf
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Toerless Eckert (eckert)
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Voyer, Daniel (520309)
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Ray Pelletier
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Livingood, Jason
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Alan Whinery
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Ray Pelletier
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives David Conrad
- Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives Alan Whinery