Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com> Thu, 11 June 2020 01:48 UTC

Return-Path: <olejacobsen@me.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 EBC693A1625 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 18:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=me.com
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 w2yMjZ5T6mnx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 18:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mr85p00im-ztdg06021201.me.com (mr85p00im-ztdg06021201.me.com [17.58.23.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5E0B3A1624 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 18:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=me.com; s=1a1hai; t=1591840117; bh=R+GR7YNCcAPkd7oLHWkmVUrIobmmeKqlIhaiDlIy1Y4=; h=Content-Type:Subject:From:Date:Message-Id:To; b=TxA9opg9hQfq0W7SgL4O7JL5KiYqAyZSr87uSm1h+YXoBVTV+5Snan1pfkcuqMaZp TRjlK9h9Ae8yMzCthAxmxI3/S52lwviDLx2c0IuvJmmzpwBl9giifK35tenXe+Plja Pvk3U+cv/u/SRop/tE77KUKFNnPQvWLe45UgZIyo0+WxEgDehttrj9Cv8er5xsGiQ6 Yn18v3GNSpSl2Z2+EByXPfTPldIzvt+GobYng3ZlZbSJjQpzSqdaolIFaadZJkSkYd JnnrAckCcetqg8sthEcHb6S/KkimCILy3lOhyveC++1+bkTelbFPpFMn6qTZ8ygRWS krmuaEPoltiMg==
Received: from [192.168.1.133] (157-131-170-137.fiber.dynamic.sonic.net [157.131.170.137]) by mr85p00im-ztdg06021201.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07FC61206B4; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:48:37 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
From: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200611011728.9AC071A5EFB6@ary.qy>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 18:48:36 -0700
Cc: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>, ietf@ietf.org, csp@csperkins.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D6C86F61-7AD7-4570-840D-DCE01D1FC32D@me.com>
References: <20200611011728.9AC071A5EFB6@ary.qy>
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-10_13:2020-06-10, 2020-06-10 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=719 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-2004280000 definitions=main-2006110012
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yATORn3Wafzu6a6UV-1H898HcDs>
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:48:39 -0000

John,

I am not arguing that the business models are the same or that the IETF can
make “everything free” in the long run. I am arguing (as have others), that the
fee change happened rather quickly with not much community discussion or consensus.

This would be an excellent time IMO to ask ISOC for additional support while we
figure out the longer term strategy.

With respect to the actual meeting income for f2f meetings, my understanding is that
these come from both (usually) a major sponsor (called “The Host”) and of course the
registration fees. This goes into paying for everything on site, ++ RPC etc.

The expenses are clearly going to be different for online-only meeting.

Ole

> On 10 Jun 2020, at 18:17, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <022051D6-7CD3-43CA-BD3C-511F7EFAC9E2@csperkins.org> you write:
>>> One datapoint: The RIPE meeting which went "virtual"
>> in May had *record* attendance (and no fee).
>> 
>> I'd be interested to see how the RIPE funding model compares to =
>> that of IETF.=20
> 
> RIPE's budget is on its web site:
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-735
> 
> Most of their revenue is membership fees, €35M of a €37M budget.
> Meeting revenue was only budgeted at 235K so it wouldn't have been
> much of a stretch to forego it.
> 
> This is totally different from the IETF which has no members, no
> membership fees, and gets a substantial fraction of its income from
> meeting fees.
> 
> I would be as happy as anyone else to have all of our meetings be free
> to everyone but since the Money Faeries don't seem to be showering us
> with free cash, if someone proposes we do that, they need to explain
> how the budget will work.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
> 

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell:   +1 415-370-4628
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen@me.com
E-mail: ole@protocoljournal.org
Skype: organdemo