Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Benson Schliesser <> Wed, 25 May 2016 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2990812D09F for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JFzqbxHVWmxH for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2220712D5A3 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ww9so20144272lbc.2 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5C1K+gWO0vJ1hQBonQG3pdLUejU3QFfRjjJqVX5w2n0=; b=DBojyHFnrQiG2GwdHPnfEbrlaC846Bqjpmxa2vaYNvYfXBSezJCvDeclxONXG5BDQW 5ul0lBh9sW7CVcRWo7l6/cPhSDN4+ypdY3g1R805CMFCZGRbp0C4X9Xmfgkd9e+U2CoD ulHCvNK5wyipIMK1E5nZutr7vQBi2eCVboN2Y=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5C1K+gWO0vJ1hQBonQG3pdLUejU3QFfRjjJqVX5w2n0=; b=TmeYRen1U53npsoXHNVeAmGknFnV8oWZLh7ZXirM7j41Qml+N86I3rJBR2nJB7++iH N1Dj2nTXVorKbu5EIbyCOAluetVlvMz6+wntps5MQRm6BPY7YnYHvnbLvaP82hqs7xcM cpIUuueWNxLmSGBL5t9E08oOAE+hr56rlYSTLteRKGPKgURGonTLTgBbPG7rcNe2C8cC oU4ykhqsrAgh2SGN4svjx4wOyuillXmCIi1TsrN44lQp7ZJZxh9FjpJGs6EReFV59209 c/dEeqRmIwNvGbzumTyWMNKmFot2c074fYuHMNBTYOo5So6g8DcfZ3MAsS9TI84Fmzi8 2I7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL4FXOXcXRGeYx5qU42Fzs9fb0oRfmByq2bHfsBaf3SeOUqCejpzkQCmoQwkbVp/Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id a28mr6284098qtb.13.1464217851564; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from desolation-5.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id y64sm2656756qkb.26.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 May 2016 16:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:10:49 -0400
From: Benson Schliesser <>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: George Michaelson <>
Subject: Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 23:17:01 -0000

In this message I am speaking only for myself as an individual, not for
the IAOC.

George Michaelson wrote:
> point of information:
> the $80,000 is a real loss: we paid the money it isn't coming back.
> the $150,000 incentive is an OPPORTUNITY COST. We don't *get* the
> money if we don't go.
> These are not the same things either in the real world, or in accounting.

You are correct. The first is effectively a "check" that we have to
write. The second is effectively a loss of revenue. However...

> Please, can we avoid using the word "loss" in connection with things
> we don't get, as distinct from things we have to pay unavoidably?

Looking at the issue from a budgetary point of view, relatively
speaking, these are both losses. It may be helpful for the community to
understand the distinction better. But I disagree that we should avoid
using the word "loss" to describe them both.

For the sake of understanding, let me put it another way: compared to
the budget, there is an incrementally negative value (cost) associated
with moving the IETF 100 meeting venue from Singapore to another city.
That value is somewhere between ($80,000) and ($230,000), depending on
what incentives are available at a new meeting locale. Even if a
relocated IETF 100 results in net-positive value, reducing that value by
$80-230k will be reflected into the annual budget. Since the IETF
routinely runs at a loss each year, this incremental negative value will
result in a larger loss that year. That larger loss will have to be
covered by additional funds, raised from sources TBD.

Yes, we have had some preliminary discussion about additional funding
sources to cover the loss, but we don't yet have any certainty.