.IETF already exists - try not to duplicate namespace. Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
PoserTutor - How to use Poser http://posertutor.nomad/ registration facilities in the inclusive namespace On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Peter Deutsch wrote: > g'day Randy, > > Randy Bush wrote: > > > > > At one point some of us tried to use the .org redelegation to help fund > > > the IETF. [1] We didn't win but the ISOC's bid did win. Did the ISOC make > > > the same commitment, could they divert some funding from .org domain > > > registrations to support the IETF? > > > > how would they justify this? i.e. s/org/net/ or s/org/uk/ and how > > does it work out? > > I'm not sure I understand the question, but maybe you're just waxing > rhetorical? > > If the question is should PIR help support the IETF, it would seem to > fall within their mission, if they chose to do so. After all, their home > page states: > > "PIR looks forward to serving the .ORG community by > providing superior technology; new services designed > for noncommercial registrants; and responsive, > responsible stewardship." > > Note the line about "providing superior technology", which could be > interpreted as supporting improvements to DNS technologies, at the > least. Wouldn't be much of a stretch to say it could also cover > supporting developments at the transport layer. Given the relationship > between ISOC and the IETF you could make a similar argument about this > being within *their* mandate, as well. > > Still, AFAIK PIR haven't actually made any specific commitments to > helping out the IETF, so it wouldn't be appropriate to try to strong-arm > them into offering to do so now, but I see no reason why we shouldn't > push for revenues from a specific TLD to support the overall mission of > the IETF in the future. Folks who support the IETF's goals and mission > could use their patronage of the "IETF TLD" to show their support and > provide specific finiancial aid. It would act as sort of an "affinity > TLD service", just like those affinity credit cards, where a portion of > the money spent goes as a subsidy to your favorite worthy cause. > > In fact, I'm surprised that this isn't being done already, since it > seems such an obvious step. It would certainly be appropriate to set up > an "IETF domain" to pay for the secretariat, mailing list hosting, a > full-blown set of archives, etc. Meeting fees could then be used to fund > only the incremental cost of a participant's physical presence (such as, > of course, the cookies...) > > > > Let's look at the numbers for a minute. The IETF's non-meeting costs are > somewhere on the order of $1.3 million, and the meetings are something > on the order of $1.2 million (from slide 3 of Harald's presentation). > This means that the meeting's direct costs are only about $250 per > attendee per year (assuming three meetings per year and about 1.6k > attendees per meeting). > > So, if the new TLD fees could raise something like $1.3 million clear > (after the expenses of actually providing the TLD servers, which of > course are ripe for donations, subsidies, etc) then you would only need > to charge something like $250 per person per year for the actual > meetings, which is obviously less than is charged now. > > So let's set the target at $2 million to cover the cost of a small TLD > service, plus a little extra to build up the rainy day fund. > > How realistic is it to consider raising $2 million per year in domain > registrations? > > Here's where I need to wave my hands a little and you need to use your > imagination, but if you charge, say, $50 per reg, this is 40,000 > entries. Make it something like $200/year each and you need only 10,000 > to hit your target. Are there 20,000 people out there who'd pay $100 per > year to have a cool "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" email address? I suspect so. > > And of course, you can reduce this number further if you still allow > some cross-subsidy from the meeting fees, you can still push for > corporate donations (say for servers or hosting services to reduce the > service costs), etc. Here's where a full time DNS business manager could > probably pay for him or herself in no time at all by drumming up > equipment donations and hosting subsidies. > > In any event, there are today something like 2,000 people who already > pay something like $500 per visit to the IETF over the course of a year > for their meeting fees. Assuming you've reduced the meeting fees, or > simply rolled the TLD sub into the existing fee, you'd find this part of > the equation could remain revenue neutral with few complaints. Thus, the > question boils down to whether you could raise any *additional* revenues > from subs coming in from folks not physically present, companies, > Intellectual Property lawyers and so on. At first glance this certainly > seems feasible to me... > > And if you do better than cover the current revenue shortfall, you would > actually be lowering the cost of IETF participation for those who > physically show up to meetings. As Martha Stewart would say "And This is > Good...(tm)" > > > I for one maintain a few TLDs and wouldn't mind at all taking out at > least one more to support the IETF, assuming it's a "reasonable" fee > (anything under $100 per year would probably be lost in the noise). It > would be a legitimate business expense for me, and I'd know the money is > going to support something I approve of. You'd need to do some real > market research to determine if this is all viable or if I'm really as > special as my mom always thought, but my guess is you could find a whole > passle of intellectual property types who'd sign up for their favorite > strings on principle (after fighting you tooth and nail through the > "twisty little passages of ICANN, all the same" until the TLD went > live). > > My guess is that there's an inbuilt free rent in *any* TLD (why do you > think they're so popular??) but even if there isn't, all you're really > trying to do is generate supplemental revenues equal to the delta > between current revenues and expenses, so this looks like a *very* > promising line to take. > > The only other alternative for an organization who sees its membership > falling is to cut costs or increase fees. The former reduces performance > and the later could lead to a death spiral as rising costs chase more > and more people away. Finding an alternative revenue stream seems the > only *healthy* long term alternative. > > > Oh wait - there is a hitch. Of course, if we try to do this, the IETF > would then be finally forced to visit the ICANN Alternate Reality Plane > that the rest of the world has struggled with for so long. Whether this > is considered a "good thing" or a "bad thing" is left as an exercise for > the reader but if any organization has a claim to a TLD, it would seem > to be the group that defines and maintains the very technologies and > procedures used to make the service work. This approach requires no > revenue-sharing agreements with the other TLD operators, no changes in > technologies or procedures and shouldn't "destabilize the root" since > it's a single additional TLD with minimal impact on traffic patterns. > Putting aside any moral claims, the IETF should be able to quickly reach > consensus upon an RFC stating that this specific TLD wouldn't hurt the > current DNS... ;-) > > Okay, that's more than my 2 cents on this subject. Do with it as you > will... > > > And finally, a couple of specific comments on the posted financials > before I close. > > Any business plan predicated upon the assumption that attendance will > maintain or return to the higher levels of previous years seems fatally > flawed, to say the least. The hi tech train wreck has now lasted three > years and shows no signs of being cleared from the tracks any time soon, > so we shouldn't allow ourselves too much "irrational optimism" on this > front. A more likely scenario is falling attendance for at least another > year, if not more, and this should be in the budget. > > Also, to respond to Steve Casner's comment about comparisons with past > costs, given the inertia in starting and perpetrating working groups I > would guess that a 20 percent reduction in attendees doesn't > automatically translate to a 20 percent reduction in demand for the > number of meeting rooms, just more space available in each room, so > there seems to have been a ratchet effect here on the cost base. And if > the IETF's cost base is now permanently higher than it was a few years > ago, you will either need to take steps to fix the revenue side, or > you'll need to fix the demand side. > > Thus, it looks like one of the steps needed in these harder times is a > cost-cutting exercise to reduce the number or working groups, and thus > the number of rooms needed. The demands upon space likely wont drop back > down again on their own, so some hard calls might be needed to balance > the books here. > > > In summary, I would suggest that if decisions are made based upon > built-in assumptions such as "attendance is going back up" or "falling > attendance automatically lowers costs", we'll all be revisiting this > whole debate again a year from now, but with the numbers in worse shape > than they are today... > > > > - peterd (who remembers this specific analysis on the > cost of cookies cycling round before...) > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gydig Software > > > As Oprah Winfrey likes to say, "There's only two ways > to lose weight - eat less, or exercise more..." > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
