Re: Registration details for IETF 108

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 11:22 AM John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:

> In article <CABcZeBOLAw_9s-gobFYB=
> [e-mail]>,
> Eric Rescorla  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >This seems like entirely appropriate practice on short notice. I would
> note
> >that the LLC regularly makes decisions which involve a far larger change
> to
> >people's costs than the fees -- namely, where to site the meeting --
> >without consultation, so I while I think it would be good for the LLC to
> >get feedback on this topic, I don't think there's inherently an obligation
> >to put it to a community wide call for consensus.
>
> Agreed. The IETF works within financial constraints, and a large part
> of the LLC's job is to balance what we want to do with the resources
> we have. Unilaterally making 108 free for everyone would blow a large
> hole in our budget (there are still expenses even without a physical
> meeting) and we can't just decree it.
>

Had ISOC been allowed to dispose of the PIR without the political meddling,
it would of course have been able to do exactly that, and could have been
expected to.

But it wasn't and while it probably still could we can't expect that it
should. Which means that because some folk decided to fund raise off the
risk that the minority of non profits holding .org names might end up
paying one or two dollars a year extra, the one non-profit the PIR is
actually supposed to fund now continues to face a massive concentrated
position in its portfolio.