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

[Benson Schliesser <[e-mail]>]

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.

Cheers,
-Benson