Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 05 June 2020 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB70C3A07DF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=eVUrOFxZ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=moc1m37H
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GdJl3z3-05q6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.yitter.info (mx5.yitter.info [159.203.31.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B4593A07E0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx5.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE817BD518 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1591371045; bh=OZDcLmO+mSfvn59NxPgGY29J7kNFIPRYJHZxtwVbQjE=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=eVUrOFxZ6DK7xb7HMem9C8w46intyyRN019S4TAMPj/ahEFy5mYuMyOW+3Y313aiS mX/iUbRrsKumuf8jOYS68KtFejwthRxx7WpON5FxpgocBpIO+VVGarvj1/KhW4htdt cMkWh5xOflphKS8wiODOx18SuTzArixR5Y58p2fY=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx5.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx5.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qku6Lo_6QRCo for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:30:44 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:30:42 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1591371044; bh=OZDcLmO+mSfvn59NxPgGY29J7kNFIPRYJHZxtwVbQjE=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=moc1m37HNZN4r76vyBbDTuNZ1gcmp4fnr4kXBlf4YqVDZ8ctwjz/pm9fbNhExl88p 95Q9gloeBb944jyhzaMnUac374m8sdZIfeYc8L8ooZ2QCz5uPNKgbpZiU4Pi6E7QJj nMHYMM0Zs+n6DekDnQs2Uy+sgeRtAI3Mc73R9+oU=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108
Message-ID: <20200605153042.nospgcd7nku4luag@crankycanuck.ca>
Mail-Followup-To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <3B19A920-9D33-4E3D-8B8B-8134A5E55316@gmail.com> <86D7C39D-9778-4408-B7CA-CB74E9572B1B@ietf.org> <511A3EE0-976B-40FF-813A-58CC115E760A@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <511A3EE0-976B-40FF-813A-58CC115E760A@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pDjbbmQnnGXng9BsgvUnPFfI1qw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 15:30:51 -0000

Hi,

[ObDisclaimer: I am ISOC's CEO, but please note that I am _not_ offering an ISOC position at the moment.]

On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 08:07:24PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:

>That isn’t a new problem, as much of our funding some from ISOC.
>
>A model where the meetings (face to face or all remote) pay for themselves, and ISOC pays for the rest would work.

I'm sure that would work well for the IETF, but it is not the deal the IETF agreed to when the LLC agreement was established.  The IETF and ISOC came to an agreement based on the then-in-force principles of budgetting, and those were not "ISOC pays for everything other than IETF direct meeting costs".  So if the proposed were the way the IETF wished to budget in the future, it would require some negotiation -- negotiation that I suspect probably cannot be undertaken in time for a July virtual meeting.

(More generally, and not in reference to Bob's message in particular, I'm a little surprised at the degree to which the community wants to manage the LLC on this topic, given the oft-expressed concern during the IASA reform work that the community tended to try to involve itself in details that were really properly a staff question.)

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com