Re: [admin-discuss] [IAB] Consultation on IETF Administrative Strategic Plan 2023

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

On 18-Nov-23 01:44, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> I don’t think this is only about getting more or even explicit funding and saying sorry we don’t have enough funding, so we can’t really consider this a goal it not appropriate from my point of view. The LLC introduced the remote fee at the beginning of the pandemic for financial reason which I think were well accepted at that time. Then we the pandemic was over the LlC said they cannot remove the fee for financial reasons which is already failure for the LLC in my view. Yes, costs have increased for remote participation because we have improved it but costs have increased for everything and improving remote participation should have been an important goals even without the pandemic. The LLC has to manage costs and therefore this situation was accepted, however, the LLC  has room for decision where to invest the money we have and I don’t see that free remote participation is even considered as a goal in that financial distribution of the budget. It's about priorities and I personally don’t see them reflect the strong statement made by the LLC.

Given that money is fungible, I assume you are arguing that *as a matter of principle* we should cover all the costs of remote participation by increasing the price of on-site participation. I don't think that is equitable - people who participate on-site already have to pay their own travel and accommodation costs as well as their share of direct meeting costs. Why should they also subsidise the direct meeting costs of all remote participants?

If we want to do that, I don't think it should be an LLC decision, it should be a community decision. (To be clear, the approved BCP draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee *is* a community decision, but not that one.)

Regards
     Brian


> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 16. Nov 2023, at 14:48, Livingood, Jason <jason_livingood=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/15/23, 17:10, "admin-discuss on behalf of Mirja Kuehlewind" wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed feedback; that is what these consultations are intended to elicit. :-)
>>
>>> 5. The long-term aspirational goal is for all participation in the IETF to be free, including IETF Meetings.
>>> I don't see this reflected in the strategic plan. I don't know what you mean by aspirational, but I hope it doesn't mean that you don't take it seriously. However, I think a strategic plan needs to reflect these long-term goals.
>>
>> Funding is in the plan, page 3, goal 4 - as well as page 7. It is also on slide 14 of the LLC presentation at IETF-118 as item 2 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/slides-118-ietf-sessb-ietf-118-ietf-llc-briefing). I was also asked about this at the IETF-118 plenary and noted it remains an important goal. I do not know how else to say that raising more funds is extremely important and a key goal.
>>
>> FWIW, in the 2024 budget, we estimate meeting registration fees at $1.9M. We are eager to find new sponsors for these (and other) sorts of things. A sponsor could for example donate that money and make registration free or nearly free for all. We are trying to focus not just on the desire for this to happen but to find people/organizations that might be willing to make those donations. If you have any suggestions on possible donors or other fundraising ideas, please let us know! :-)
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>