Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

On 4/11/2017 1:18 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:12:20PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>> There's a bit of distance between saying we're preserving/codifying the
>> old model and that it's okay to knowingly setup a meeting that is going
>> to loose money, i.e., which will likely translate to increased meeting
>> fees. 
> Why does that follow?  It could be that a new sponsorship arrangement
> supports IETF activities generally, and maybe meetings are a net loss.
> I suspect that's how ICANN operates, just for instance (their meeting
> budgets are amazing, and it seems unlikely that they get enough
> sponsorship to cover them.  And they charge no fees).

Then these meetings don't operate at a loss, they are covered by
sponsorships or other donations.   I guess we need to define net loss -
unless you're suggesting that not covering costs in a projected /
budgeted fashion is acceptable?

Lou

> A
>