Re: [admin-discuss] Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Registration open for IETF 114)

[Anupam Agrawal <[e-mail]>]

> On 13-May-2022, at 5:11 PM, Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> [Switching to admin-discuss]
> 
> Hi Anupam
> 
>> On 13 May 2022, at 04:25, Anupam Agrawal <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> At one point in time, meeting fees possibly was the only way to cover the costs of IETF and USD 600 was justified.
> 
> How far back are you referring to?  ISOC has been contributing financially every year to the IETF since 1995 [1] so the last year I am aware of this being possibly correct was 1994.
> 
>> Even more was  justified even though at the risk of being exclusionary. Survival is important than optics. 
>> 
>> But now, As on Dec-20, IETF LLC had 19M USD (19,301,645 $) in stock investments yielding 2M USD in Investment income. Any stock market invest has a risk attached to it. Interestingly, the auditor points out that IETF bank deposits of 477K USD is beyond the insurable limit and thus has a risk.
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/2020_Audited_Financials.pdf <https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/2020_Audited_Financials.pdf>
> I don’t understand what relevance our current investment risk profile has to this issue?

[AA] - The contributions received from participants or sponsors is to further the mission of IETF. It is otherwise sitting in stocks and bonds and is carrying risk of devaluation or loss. This is expressed in the Auditor’s report adequately - “…….it is at least reasonably possible that changes in risks in the near term could materially affect investment balances and the amounts reported in the financial statements.” I wanted to copy the entire paragraph but the pdf asks for a code to copy the text. At the end end IETF LLC is for public charity and charity will not happen by keeping money in stocks and bonds. It has to come to community in some form.

> 
>> 
>> Possibly an opportunity to correct the exclusionary trend.
> 
> Do you have any data on this exclusionary trend?  

[AA] - I don’t have data. I have experience of dealing it first hand. I was the Chair of ISOC India Kolkata Chapter and we were running an IETF Capacity Building program for increased participation. The program also received ISOC Beyond the Net Funding. As part of the process we identified quite a few sparks. The next step was to send them to IETF meeting to get in the middle of you people and get them enriched and engaged in the process. For every 5 people, I could send to IETF meeting, only 4 could be sent. (700x4 USD) was good for one more spark to fly. So from where I stand, IETF meeting fees is 20% exclusionary. 

> 
> It’s not clear to me what possibility you see here, but I think you are suggesting a reduction in the meeting fee rather than say travel grants.  When this has been discussed previously, multiple community members have noted that the fee is a relatively small part of the total cost of meeting participation in comparison to travel and accommodation.  It is therefore questionable as to what benefit would be achieved by always running our meetings at a loss if the effect on participation was marginal.

[AA] - I am with you that meetings should not be run at a loss. Loss is not sustainable. I am also not saying that don’t invest in stocks and bonds. I am simply saying that at least the income from investments which are getting reinvested in corporate style bonds and stocks should be instead used for the community. Reduction in meeting fees is definitely the suggestion. It does not have to be zero but possibly a flexible thing linked to investments like 50% of investment income will be used for fees reduction. 


> 
> [1]  https://www.internetsociety.org/internet/history-of-the-internet/ietf-internet-society/ <https://www.internetsociety.org/internet/history-of-the-internet/ietf-internet-society/>
>> 
>> --
>> Anupam
>> 
>>> On 10-May-2022, at 9:10 AM, George Michaelson <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I used a US inflation calculator. in 2007 IETF registration cost $600.
>>> 2022 would be $830 if it simply kept pace with the CPI adjustment to
>>> the dollar.
>>> 
>>> So the "$700 is reasonable" has a basis in 15 years practie. When did
>>> we become so exclusionary? at least 15 years ago.
>>> 
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/JUByvYCkSb2WDSt9h4lDkaoe9gc/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/JUByvYCkSb2WDSt9h4lDkaoe9gc/>
>>> 
>>> -G
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 1:17 PM Keith Moore <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 5/9/22 23:07, John Levine wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Could you give us a specific dollar limit for a reasonable price?
>>>> 
>>>> This is going to vary a lot from one person to another, but offhand I'd
>>>> say that $1000/meeting for hotel and entry fee combined (not including
>>>> travel) is a good goal for meetings in North America.
>>>> 
>>>> The early bird fee is $700.  $300 for a week's hotel?
>>>> 
>>>> Why is $700 reasonable either?   How have we let IETF become so exclusionary?   Is that really consistent with IETF's mission?
>>>> 
>>>> Even if we tried to go the cheap route and find a college campus
>>>> that would host us for free, when I look for places near our
>>>> local campus they're a lot more than $75/night.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't know where you're from.   But I know many places where decent, safe, clean rooms can be had for around $75/night.   Granted, they're less likely to be in large cities, but sometimes they're within reasonable commuting distance of city centers.
>>>> 
>>>> Keith
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>