Re: Planned changes to registration payments & deadlines

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 07:55:31AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

> Comparisons need to be made carefully.

Indeed.  I will observe, for instance, that the fact we don't have
memberships (let alone corporate memberships) complicates our
situation quite a lot.  I _think_ we all still think that's a feature,
but it's worth noting.

> confused with it.   Is the following an at least s nearly
> correct summary of the bottom line:

[…]

It's probably one useful way to understand things, anyway.  I don't
know that it's exactly how I'd describe things, but there's more than
one way to describe most phenomena.

> Viewed that way, the whole question of "register without paying"
> is mostly a distraction.

Yes.

> individualized "hey, early registration is about to close, you
> indicated you were probably coming, want to register and pay up
> before the fees go up" messages if people thought those might
> help.

Who will pay for the creation and operation of this feature?  Features
are not free.

Given our size and what we're doing, we're operating on a shoestring
budget.  But people need to understand that the competitive landscape
is not in our favour.  There is a lot of consolidation in the
hospitality industry (if you're unaware of this, please use your
favourite search engine to read about Marriot and Starwood, or
AccorHotels' recent acquisitions).  Our long-running deal with Hilton
is expiring, and its terms were quite generous.  Venue operators have
minimum expected incomes from a group our size, and if they don't get
that income somehow they simply won't welcome us at all (this is why
trimming cookies doesn't help: if F&B goes down, meeting space charges
will go up to compensate).

Meanwhile, our tooling is not getting cheaper, and a lot of it is
bespoke.  We have neither a really large income base nor an obvious
way to diversify and increase it without affecting the nature of the
IETF.

I am very much in favour of operating in an open way, and I welcome
comments on the proposal we are making.  But I also want people to
appreciate that the _status quo ante_ is not going to be on the list
of options.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]