Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Pekka Savola]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, John Stracke wrote:
> >>"Self-funded" is problematic, though: how do you tell the
> >>difference between someone who really is paying his own way and
> >>someone who's going to expense it? And what about a consultant
> >>with his own small business; if he owns the business outright, and
> >>the business pays the way, is that self-funded or not?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Maybe a bit -- but, if you're self funded then you have no
> >affiliation on your badge.
> >
>
> So I could pass for self-funded by not telling putting down a company 
> name on my registration?

Yes.
 
> >>I think other organizations make this kind of distinction work by
> >>giving more rights to people who pay more; that would be the
> >>opposite of what we want to do here.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I was specifically thinking of SIGCOMM's student travel grant
> >program -- in which the above is not the case.
> >
>
> But "student" is a well-defined class, with a moderately good means to 
> check.  "Self-funded" is neither.

Former might still apply, to some extent.  Of course "self-funded" price 
should probably be higher than "student" price, for obvious reasons.

Certainly, I'd have qualified for "student" myself, but have always made 
my company pay the full price: the IETF needs the money more than my 
company, I've gathered.

If the difference would be like 100-200 dollars, or whatnot, would people 
bother?  Without company in the nametag, it would be for all to see, too.

-- 
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[John Stracke]

Mark Allman wrote:

"Self-funded" is problematic, though: how do you tell the
difference between someone who really is paying his own way and
someone who's going to expense it? And what about a consultant
with his own small business; if he owns the business outright, and
the business pays the way, is that self-funded or not?
   

Maybe a bit -- but, if you're self funded then you have no
affiliation on your badge.
So I could pass for self-funded by not telling putting down a company 
name on my registration?

I think other organizations make this kind of distinction work by
giving more rights to people who pay more; that would be the
opposite of what we want to do here.
   

I was specifically thinking of SIGCOMM's student travel grant
program -- in which the above is not the case.
But "student" is a well-defined class, with a moderately good means to 
check.  "Self-funded" is neither.

--
/\
|John Stracke  |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com   |
|Centive   |My opinions are my own.  |
||
|"God does not play games with His loyal servants." "Whoo-ee,|
|where have you *been*?" --_Good Omens_  |
\/

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Mark Allman]

John-

> Processing those applications would mean lots more work for the
> Secretariat.  And then there'd be the time spent on people
> complaining because they were turned down.
> 
> >(And, there would be several well-known
> >categories of folk who would be helped: academics, students,
> >self-funded, folks from non-profits, whatever)
> 
> "Self-funded" is problematic, though: how do you tell the
> difference between someone who really is paying his own way and
> someone who's going to expense it? And what about a consultant
> with his own small business; if he owns the business outright, and
> the business pays the way, is that self-funded or not?

Maybe a bit -- but, if you're self funded then you have no
affiliation on your badge.

It would be a bit of extra work, I agree.  How much, I have no
idea...

But, let's face it ... we're going to raise the meeting fee to get
our finances in order.  And, I was echoing Harald's point that this
could be a Big Deal to some folk.  A student I have worked with in
the past funded his way to SF last week and I know was very grateful
for the break in the meeting fee.  

I, for one, do not want to eliminate these sorts of people from
attending the meetings because I think they add a different and
useful perspective.  So, I would be in favor of having some amount
of wiggle room for folk who ask for it.  I will not ask for it (in
my current situation) and would be happy (for my funder) to
subsidize the registration fee for these folk (as I am currently
thrilled to do for students who attend IETF).

> I think other organizations make this kind of distinction work by
> giving more rights to people who pay more; that would be the
> opposite of what we want to do here.

I was specifically thinking of SIGCOMM's student travel grant
program -- in which the above is not the case.

allman


--
Mark Allman -- NASA GRC/BBN -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Rick Wesson]

Vint,

Let me restate what I said at the open mike on Wednesday.

  I will reserve 8% or $1 USD, whichever is greater, per unit sold by my
  company for one year. At the end of that year I'll donate that money to
  the ISOC ear marked for the IETF.

Its almost the same deal IMS/ISC offered had they gotten the .org bid.

Be the change you wish to see.


-rick

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:

> that would have to be a decision of PIR and its board - ISOC does not,
> at least as I understand it, have any direct access to the .org
> revenues. ISOC does select the PIR board but otherwise there is no
> financial connection.
>
> Vint
>
> At 12:08 PM 3/15/2003 -0800, Rick Wesson wrote:
>
>
> >Harald,
> >
> >> The short and sweet of it is: Unless we change something, our current
> >> funding methods won't pay for our current work.
> >> At the presentation, I'll ask the floor what they think about various ideas
> >> for improving the situation.
> >
> >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?
> >
> >It only seems like the right thing to do, at least it did to those of us
> >who worked on the bid [2]
> >
> >So, couldn't the ISOC make the same commitment fund the IETF and IAB?
> >
> >
> >-rick
> >
> >[1] http://trusted.resource.org/Support/ISOC/intent_to_donate.pdf
> >[2] http://trusted.resource.org/
>
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
>

Re: Financial State of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Tim Chown]

ok so it's the location thing i "dislike", so maybe we can agree to
use (say) the Hilton chain in NA, Europe and Asia...

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:50:48AM -0800, Michael Speer wrote:
> Tim,
> 
> Ah, I think you missed my point about this.  If you can gaurantee a 
> hotel or a set of hotels
> in a given location somekind of volume the pricing for the event goes 
> down.   It allows
> for pricing based on average attendance of all three meetings.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Chown wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:06:55PM -0800, Michael Speer wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>1. Pick a place and have the meetings there 3 times a year banking that 
> >>one could get
> >>  volume discounts and pricing for usage of the hotel.  Other 
> >>standards bodies have done
> >>  this and seems to have helped them to survive.
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >i think on the contrary have 3 meetings but in north america, europe
> >and asia each year to maximise audience.   there are cheap places in
> >europe, like madrid...
> >
> >tim
> > 
> >
> 

Re: Financial State of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Ole J. Jacobsen]

...which is why we've been meeting several times at a cetain Hilton in the
state of Minnesota.

I am sure the professional meeting planners who have been doing this job
for many, many years, are more than capable of negotiating discounts with
major hotel chains all over the world.

There are still cities in the world, for example Kuala Lumpur, that are
relatively "easy" to get to and offer very good value for money in terms
of hotel prices, food and so on. Additionally, some of us have experiences
running Internet conferences in these places.

But Foretec is more than capable of finding such locations, that's why
we hired them :-)

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj



On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Michael Speer wrote:

> Tim,
>
> Ah, I think you missed my point about this.  If you can gaurantee a
> hotel or a set of hotels in a given location somekind of volume the
> pricing for the event goes down.  It allows for pricing based on average
> attendance of all three meetings.
>
> Michael
>

>
>

Re: Fwd: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Scott W Brim]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 12:48:03PM -0500, John Stracke allegedly wrote:
> One risk there: If the IETF became too dependent on big donors, its 
> neutrality could be threatened.

Ohh, that stirred up a memory of the campus ROTC debates in the 60s!

Re: Financial State of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Michael Speer]

Tim,

Ah, I think you missed my point about this.  If you can gaurantee a 
hotel or a set of hotels
in a given location somekind of volume the pricing for the event goes 
down.   It allows
for pricing based on average attendance of all three meetings.

Michael



Tim Chown wrote:

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:06:55PM -0800, Michael Speer wrote:
 

1. Pick a place and have the meetings there 3 times a year banking that 
one could get
  volume discounts and pricing for usage of the hotel.  Other 
standards bodies have done
  this and seems to have helped them to survive.
   

i think on the contrary have 3 meetings but in north america, europe
and asia each year to maximise audience.   there are cheap places in
europe, like madrid...
tim
 

Re: Financial State of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Scott W Brim]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 05:07:28PM +, Tim Chown allegedly wrote:
> i think on the contrary have 3 meetings but in north america, europe
> and asia each year to maximise audience.   there are cheap places in
> europe, like madrid...

It depends on the relationship between attendee numbers and hotel costs.
You want to attract more attendees until you reach a level just before a
jump to another level of required logistics.

Re: Financial State of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Markku Savela]

ICANN is getting millions, and not giving back much. Dismantle ICANN,
redirect money to IETF. Running few root servers should not cost
millions...

Re: Financial State of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Tim Chown]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:06:55PM -0800, Michael Speer wrote:
> 
> 2. Eliminate all food in the hall (breakfast and afternoon snack) -- 
> this will certainly cut
>on expenses.  Maybe allow water, coffee, and tea.

clearly most people in the plenary would pay $70 more, for me the difference
in $2500 or $2570 to make the trip here is not important, the free time is.

in that light paying a few $$$ for snacks is not a problem, esp. when there
is little time to go anywhere else between sessions.

tim

Re: Financial State of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Tim Chown]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:06:55PM -0800, Michael Speer wrote:
> 
> 1. Pick a place and have the meetings there 3 times a year banking that 
> one could get
>volume discounts and pricing for usage of the hotel.  Other 
> standards bodies have done
>this and seems to have helped them to survive.

i think on the contrary have 3 meetings but in north america, europe
and asia each year to maximise audience.   there are cheap places in
europe, like madrid...

tim

Re: Financial State of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Michael Speer]

All,

So just a couple of thoughts that might make things financially better 
for IETF and these
are tough choices:

1. Pick a place and have the meetings there 3 times a year banking that 
one could get
   volume discounts and pricing for usage of the hotel.  Other 
standards bodies have done
   this and seems to have helped them to survive.

2. Eliminate all food in the hall (breakfast and afternoon snack) -- 
this will certainly cut
   on expenses.  Maybe allow water, coffee, and tea.

When faced with tough times, tough choices need to be made.  These are 
probably not
popular suggestions, but may go a long way towards helping the situation.

Michael

Re: Fwd: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[John Stracke]

Margaret Wasserman wrote:

We could attempt to increase fundraising for ISOC/the IETF.
One risk there: If the IETF became too dependent on big donors, its 
neutrality could be threatened.

--
/\
|John Stracke  |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com   |
|Centive   |My opinions are my own.  |
||
|A successful tool is one that was used to do something undreamed|
|of by its author.   |
\/

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[John Stracke]

Mark Allman wrote:

So, we raise the fees to cover our expenses, but continue to offer
the possibility of a break by applying for a reduced rate from some
"fee grant fund".
Processing those applications would mean lots more work for the 
Secretariat.  And then there'd be the time spent on people complaining 
because they were turned down.

(And, there would be several well-known
categories of folk who would be helped: academics, students,
self-funded, folks from non-profits, whatever)
"Self-funded" is problematic, though: how do you tell the difference 
between someone who really is paying his own way and someone who's going 
to expense it? And what about a consultant with his own small business; 
if he owns the business outright, and the business pays the way, is that 
self-funded or not?

I think other organizations make this kind of distinction work by giving 
more rights to people who pay more; that would be the opposite of what 
we want to do here.

--
/===\
|John Stracke  |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com  |
|Centive   |My opinions are my own. |
|===|
|Don't anthropomorphize computers. We don't like it.|
\===/

Publishing the budget (Re: Fwd: Re: Financial state of the IETF -to be presented Wednesday)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 18. mars 2003 10:02 -0800 Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Harald,

At 07:35 AM 3/18/2003, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

Hi Harald,

At 09:10 PM 3/14/2003 +0100, you wrote:
On Wednesday at the IESG plenary, I'm doing a presentation about IETF
financials.
I have a few questions and comments on this presentation.

Do we have a real budget for 2003? Or are the numbers for
2003 based on the projection information (from the slide
labeled "Predicting the Future")?
If we do have a budget, could you make it publicly available?
It would be useful to get more information about where the
money is coming from, and where it is going. Without that
sort of information, it would be difficult to make the choices
outlined on the last slide.
I second Margaret Wasserman's suggestion that the 2003 budget information
should be made public.  The funding funding of the IETF comes from a mix
of registration fees and ISOC funding.  All of this information should be
public and made available to the IETF community.
I do have a budget from the Foretec president, which is specified to about 
the same granularity as the report on http://www.ietf.org/u/chair/ for 2001.
(actually I have several, based on different projections of attendance; I'm 
using the scenario I consider most likely)

That budget shows the shortfall from the summary slides, and its cost 
distribution is not terribly different from that in the 2001 figures.
At the moment, I want to gauge the mood of the community towards various 
changes we can make, and then see how much we can do of what the community 
favours (whether it's raising the fee by USD 100, scrounging for 
sponsorships, or other things), and what the effect on the 2003 budget is 
likely to be.

I'll make it public when we (the Foretec president and the IETF leadership) 
agree that this is a reasonable budget to go forward with; we agree that 
going forward on the present budget wouldn't be fiscally responsible.

Margaret also asked:

Who decides how much of the ISOC's income is directed to IETF
activities? Do we know what percentage of ISOC's income is
represented in the $500-600K number?
This could be better answered by Fred Baker - but I think it's about half 
their budget.

Also, you have omitted at least one possible choice from
the section on options:
We could attempt to increase fundraising for ISOC/the IETF. For
instance, we don't send fundraising requests to IETF attendees
(at least I've never received any). Does ISOC engage a professional
fundraising firm? If not, maybe that should be considered.
I didn't think of that.. fundraising for "professional" matters is not 
a common thing in Norwegian society, being more reserved for humanitarian 
and social causes. is it commonly done here in the US?

if aimed at corporations, I would think they would consider it as either 
sponsorship or as corporate memberships; I know that ISOC has a quite 
conscious fundraising strategy - but I'll not be the one to ask ISOC to 
start direct-mail campaigns to gather money. not after they closed down 
their paid individual membership program because it cost them more to 
manage the memberships than what the revenue stream generated

  Harald

Re: Fwd: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Bob Hinden]

Randy,

At 10:12 AM 3/18/2003, Randy Bush wrote:
> I second Margaret Wasserman's suggestion that the 2003 budget information
> should be made public.
i doubt anyone disagrees.  but i am not sure fortec has one.  now that
we actually have back numbers, forward management seems a good, though
not novel, idea.
Please explain?

Also, I looked for the 2002 expense summary on the IETF web page, but 
couldn't find it there.  It would be nice if it was on the IETF web page.

Thanks,
Bob

Re: Fwd: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Randy Bush]

> I second Margaret Wasserman's suggestion that the 2003 budget information 
> should be made public.

i doubt anyone disagrees.  but i am not sure fortec has one.  now that
we actually have back numbers, forward management seems a good, though
not novel, idea.

randy

Re: Fwd: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Bob Hinden]

Harald,

At 07:35 AM 3/18/2003, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

Hi Harald,

At 09:10 PM 3/14/2003 +0100, you wrote:
On Wednesday at the IESG plenary, I'm doing a presentation about IETF 
financials.
I have a few questions and comments on this presentation.

Do we have a real budget for 2003? Or are the numbers for
2003 based on the projection information (from the slide
labeled "Predicting the Future")?
If we do have a budget, could you make it publicly available?
It would be useful to get more information about where the
money is coming from, and where it is going. Without that
sort of information, it would be difficult to make the choices
outlined on the last slide.
I second Margaret Wasserman's suggestion that the 2003 budget information 
should be made public.  The funding funding of the IETF comes from a mix of 
registration fees and ISOC funding.  All of this information should be 
public and made available to the IETF community.

Bob

RE: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Michel Py]

Margaret,

> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> [snip]

I agree with the rest of your post, however this concerns me:

> Does ISOC engage a professional fundraising firm?
> If not, maybe that should be considered.

My experience with some of these guys is that they bring only pennies on
the dollar and are received as well as telemarketers that call during
the family dinner. I'm not against the idea if this is what it takes,
but I'd be happy to live without.

Michel.

Re: Fwd: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[David J. Aronson]

Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Aaron Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> I suggest a bakesale.  Everyone bring a baked good to Vienna...

If everybody brought I-Ds that were fully baked, that would help, too!
How about other cooked items -- like the company books?  Some places, 
they ain't got no I-D 'bout nuthin'

--
David J. Aronson, Software Engineer for hire in Washington DC area.
See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, references, etc.

Re: Fwd: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Spencer Dawkins]

Hi, Aaron and Margaret,

If everybody brought I-Ds that were fully baked, that would
help, too!

Spencer

--- Aaron Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > We could attempt to increase fundraising for ISOC/the IETF. 
> 
> Good idea.  I suggest a bakesale.  Everyone bring a baked good
> to
> Vienna...
> 
> ___
> This message was passed through
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what
> to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Re: Fwd: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Randy Bush]

> Everyone bring a baked good to Vienna...

and send coals to newcastle

Re: Fwd: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Aaron Falk]

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> 
> We could attempt to increase fundraising for ISOC/the IETF. 

Good idea.  I suggest a bakesale.  Everyone bring a baked good to
Vienna...

Fwd: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Margaret Wasserman]

Hi Harald,

At 09:10 PM 3/14/2003 +0100, you wrote:
On Wednesday at the IESG plenary, I'm doing a presentation about IETF 
financials.
I have a few questions and comments on this presentation.

Do we have a real budget for 2003? Or are the numbers for
2003 based on the projection information (from the slide
labeled "Predicting the Future")?
If we do have a budget, could you make it publicly available?
It would be useful to get more information about where the
money is coming from, and where it is going. Without that
sort of information, it would be difficult to make the choices
outlined on the last slide.
Who decides how much of the ISOC's income is directed to IETF
activities? Do we know what percentage of ISOC's income is
represented in the $500-600K number?
Also, you have omitted at least one possible choice from
the section on options:
We could attempt to increase fundraising for ISOC/the IETF. For
instance, we don't send fundraising requests to IETF attendees
(at least I've never received any). Does ISOC engage a professional
fundraising firm? If not, maybe that should be considered.
BTW, I think that it is good that you're bringing this issue
up now, instead of when the first check bounces.
Margaret

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Mark Allman]

> I'm more worried about the differential impact raising fees would
> have - it would mean very little for the "professional
> standardizers" from the vendors, but would have a negative effect
> on the self-funded, the academics and other groups that help us
> preserve a multifaceted perspective on what the Internet is and
> should be.

We already subsidize student fees (a Good Thing, I think).  Why not
make this a little more general...  

So, we raise the fees to cover our expenses, but continue to offer
the possibility of a break by applying for a reduced rate from some
"fee grant fund".  (And, there would be several well-known
categories of folk who would be helped: academics, students,
self-funded, folks from non-profits, whatever) This notion works for
student travel grants for some academic conferences.

The notion would be that we acknowledge that we need to raise more
money to cover costs -- but, that we do not want to preclude the
*very* valuable input of certain classes of participants in doing
so.

(And, this would be after a through scrubbing of the books to figure
out if we can live without terminals in the terminal room, or
cookies in the afternoon, or whatever.)

allman


--
Mark Allman -- NASA GRC/BBN -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/

RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Franck Martin]

Hey, gang,

Come to do it in Fiji. It has direct flights to
USA/JAPAN/AUSTRALIA/NEWZEALAND/KOREA/HAWAII, 5 stars hotels with conference
room facilities... Good Internet, albeit expensive, but I'm sure the
Southern Cross Cable gang may give you some spare bandwidth for the
conference

I think NADI/LA return is around USD600 (need to check this one).

And you may be surfing the net while drinking a pina colada and watching the
sunset.

Franck Martin

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, 17 March 2003 12:00 
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
> 
> 
> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > What about South America and India.  I've heard that both are
> > substantially less expensive than the US/Europe/Japan for
> > vacation accomodations.  Does the same hold for convention costs?
> 
> What about holiday resorts at the beginning and the end of 
> the holiday  
> season?
> 
> Claus
> -- 
> http://www.faerber.muc.de/
> 

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[David J. Aronson]

Claus Färber wrote:

What about holiday resorts at the beginning and the end of the holiday  
season?
Or for that matter, entirely outside the holiday season?  Sure it might 
be too hot to go outside in, say, Cancun in August... but how many 
attendees really do go outside much?  (That's not just a rhetorical 
question; I've never been to an IETF, but I've been to plenty of 
conventions where practically NOBODY leaves the hotel for several days, 
and some where nobody STAYS there for any meals.)  There are even some 
places that might be BETTER outside "the season" -- at a ski resort, you 
wouldn't have to deal with the snow in summer.

--
David J. Aronson, Software Engineer for hire in Washington DC area.
See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, references, etc.

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Claus Färber]

Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> What about South America and India.  I've heard that both are
> substantially less expensive than the US/Europe/Japan for
> vacation accomodations.  Does the same hold for convention costs?

What about holiday resorts at the beginning and the end of the holiday  
season?

Claus
-- 
http://www.faerber.muc.de/

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[John Stracke]

John Lazzaro wrote:

Instead of trying to fix the current model (meeting fees subsidize a
publishing arm), it might make sense to consider having the publishing
arm be self-funded.
 

This would be anathema to the IETF; it would impose a much higher 
barrier to implementers, and make it expensive for third parties to 
determine whether or not a given implementation is compliant.  Both of 
these would have the effect of lowering the quality of implementations.

Of course, it might be the only way; but we should look *hard* for 
alternatives.

--
/===\
|John Stracke  |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com  |
|Centive   |My opinions are my own. |
|===|
|If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!|
\===/

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[John Stracke]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

The BIG number in these discussions is the cost of the access line to 
the hotel - the discussions on price of this single item for San 
Francisco apparently ranged all the way from 10 KUSD to 80 KUSD, 
depending (among other things) on the shortest period of time the 
local-access company was willing to sell this service for.
It might be possible to find people to *partially* sponsor the terminal 
room, by letting us set up a fixed-wireless link to their nearest 
facility and route through their line.  Less cash outlay for them, plus 
it might let us sidestep the extra charges hotels usually (?) levy when 
you bring in a phone line.

The problem would be getting a sponsor who's got that much spare 
bandwidth in line-of-sight from the hotel; it'd probably mean the only 
choices would usually be telecom providers.  And any provider that close 
to the hotel would be on the short list of people from whom to buy 
access, so sponsoring us would be equivalent to giving away the line.

--
/===\
|John Stracke  |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com  |
|Centive   |My opinions are my own. |
|===|
|If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!|
\===/

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[John Stracke]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

OTOH, perhaps people could live from lunch to dinner without cookies???
Or perhaps they could buy snacks in a local store and bring them into 
the meeting? That way everybody gets their preferred food, too.

It'd be a little less social than everybody standing around breaking 
cookie together, though.

--
/===\
|John Stracke  |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com  |
|Centive   |My opinions are my own. |
|===|
|If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!|
\===/

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[John Stracke]

Theodore Ts'o wrote:

At one point, I was told that Europeans were paying roughly the same
for intra-European travel as they were to travel to North America,
 

That seems odd, given the European rail network.  I don't know what it 
costs a la carte, but I know that, both times I've flown to Europe and 
gotten a Eurailpass (30 days one time, 15 days another time), the pass 
cost less than the flight.  It costs extra in travel time, of course.

--
/===\
|John Stracke  |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com  |
|Centive   |My opinions are my own. |
|===|
|If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!|
\===/

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Spencer Dawkins]

--- Bill Strahm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> The other thing that will be interesting is how do the IETF
> meeting expenses scale with participation... Do we spend
> 300,000K regardless of how many show up, or as the number of
> attendies goes up we spend more money and if so how much more

This is a concern for me - if there's a high fixed cost, and
we've become dependent on the people sitting in the meetings as
observers (hopefully, not just reading e-mail and playing
solitaire) to cover that cost, that's bad, and it's worse if
we've become dependent on them and then their companies stop
sending them to IETF because of economic conditions.

Any thoughts on whether this is actually the case or not?

Spencer

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Peter Deutsch]

g'day,

Bill Strahm wrote:
> 
> I tend to disagree with you Ross,
> 
> First it is not excessive by definition because we are not covering our costs.  

Actually, from Harald's numbers the meeting fee more than covers the
direct costs of the meetings. What they don't cover is the total cost of
operating the secretariat and the rest of the IETF's activities.

One question that seems appropriate to ask is whether it is "fair" (for
some value of fair) to tax attendees in this way to cover overall costs,
or whether there is some more equitable funding mechanism that would
help spread this cost around a bit more. After all, the current system
is optimised for non-attendees. They get the full benefit of
participation, without carrying any of the associated costs...


> Second I don't think it is excessive because I know of MANY weeklong
> conferences that want in the order of 1000-1700 registration fees...

You're comparing apples and hand grenades. Professionally run
conferences operated by for-profit entities (to pick one example) have
entirely different cost structures. Sure, they're more expensive, but
the IETF doesn't offer professional training sessions, professionally
printed literature, trade shows, etc. All these have associated costs
and put further demands upon the infrastructure.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if you think Networld+Interop is somehow a
"better deal" than the IETF. What matters is whether the IETF can cover
its costs by charging another $100 per meeting without provoking a
measurable decline in attendance. If that happens, would you then
increase the cost further? Taken to extreme, you only need one person
willing to pay $2.5 million per year and the problem's solved but
somehow I'm not sure this is going to solve the problem in practice...


- peterd



--
-
Peter Deutsch   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Gydig Software


  "No, Harry - even in the wizarding world,
hearing voices is not a good sign..."

- Hermione Granger

-

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Ross Finlayson]

First [the registration fee] is not excessive by definition because we are 
not covering our costs.
Not necessarily.  It could be that our current costs are even more 
excessive :-)

  Second I don't think it is excessive because I know of MANY weeklong 
conferences that want in the order of 1000-1700 registration fees...
I never attend such conferences.

Ross.

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Bill Strahm]

I tend to disagree with you Ross,

First it is not excessive by definition because we are not covering our costs.  Second 
I don't think it is excessive because I know of MANY weeklong conferences that want in 
the order of 1000-1700 registration fees...

I can see how this is VERY different between someone whos company pays (who cares it 
isn't my money) and someone on a grant, sending themselves (every penny counts, cause 
money I don't spend going to an IETF meeting goes into my pocket that lets me spend it 
on my little girl... or pick your favorite way of spending money)

The other thing that will be interesting is how do the IETF meeting expenses scale 
with participation... Do we spend 300,000K regardless of how many show up, or as the 
number of attendies goes up we spend more money and if so how much more

Bill
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:17:31AM -0800, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> At 10:22 AM 3/17/03, you wrote:
> >I'm having quite a hard time seeing what the problem is here, but maybe I'm
> >missing something... Based on Harald's analysis the  projected annual
> >shortfall is in the region of $350,000 per annum. Assuming ~5,000 attendees
> >per annum, that equates to ~$70 per year per attendee.
> 
> The trouble with this analysis is that the 5000 attendees each year are not 
> all different people.  Many, if not most, people attend more than one IETF 
> meeting per year.
> 
> A more accurate analysis would be: A shortfall of $350,000 per annum means 
> ~$120,000 per IETF meeting.  So, if 1200 people attend each IETF meeting, 
> then that means $120 extra per person.  (Or, if 2400 people attend each 
> IETF meeting, then that means $60 extra per person.)
> 
> (Personally, I think that even the current $425 fee feels excessive, 
> especially in the current economic climate.)
> 
>  Ross.
> 

RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Ross Finlayson]

Duh!  I meant:

A shortfall of $350,000 per annum means ~$120,000 per IETF meeting.  So, if 
1200 people attend each IETF meeting, then that means *$100* extra per 
person.  (Or, if 2400 people attend each IETF meeting, then that means 
*$50* extra per person.)

	Ross.

RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Ross Finlayson]

At 10:22 AM 3/17/03, you wrote:
I'm having quite a hard time seeing what the problem is here, but maybe I'm
missing something... Based on Harald's analysis the  projected annual
shortfall is in the region of $350,000 per annum. Assuming ~5,000 attendees
per annum, that equates to ~$70 per year per attendee.
The trouble with this analysis is that the 5000 attendees each year are not 
all different people.  Many, if not most, people attend more than one IETF 
meeting per year.

A more accurate analysis would be: A shortfall of $350,000 per annum means 
~$120,000 per IETF meeting.  So, if 1200 people attend each IETF meeting, 
then that means $120 extra per person.  (Or, if 2400 people attend each 
IETF meeting, then that means $60 extra per person.)

(Personally, I think that even the current $425 fee feels excessive, 
especially in the current economic climate.)

Ross.

RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[matthew . ford]

I'm having quite a hard time seeing what the problem is here, but maybe I'm
missing something... Based on Harald's analysis the  projected annual
shortfall is in the region of $350,000 per annum. Assuming ~5,000 attendees
per annum, that equates to ~$70 per year per attendee. This equates to an
increase in fees of ~$25 per meeting, i.e. ~5.5%. Are there really any
regular attendees for whom this increase would constitute a serious problem?

Mat.

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Dave Crocker]

Folks,

HTA> I'm more worried about the differential impact raising fees would have - it
HTA> would mean very little for the "professional standardizers" from the
HTA> vendors, but would have a negative effect on the self-funded, the academics
HTA> and other groups that help us preserve a multifaceted perspective on what
HTA> the Internet is and should be.

Participants-on-a-budget have a number of notable challenges to
consider:

1.  Expense of getting to the meeting site
2.  Hotel expense
3.  IETF fees

The cheapest travel venues are international hubs... with many
airlines providing competing service. For example, San Francisco is
probably pretty good for this, especially since the region is serviced
by three airports. Having to travel an extra air leg from the hub,
only makes sense when the site costs are substantially lower, to
offset the extra travel.

On the other hand, the IETF hotel in S.F. is not all that cheap,
running perhaps USD 30 per day higher than we have usually been
seeing. IETF planning used to include secondary hotels for those with
limited budgets. That stopped some time ago. It would be nice to have
IETF meeting planning add this sort of information back in.

By paying attention to keeping the travel costs down, IETF planning
can make it much easier for attendees can be in a position to pay
higher meeting fees.

As noted, there also are both tactical (eg, streamlined food and
communication services) and strategic (eg, long-term contracts)
changes that well might bring meeting costs down.

Ted Ts'o highlighted the key requirement: Let's make our choices based
on serious cost consideration, with other concerns being secondary.

d/

ps.  it is worth noting that repeated use of a small set of venues
will make net access, as well as costs, better.
--
 Dave Crocker 
 Brandenburg InternetWorking 
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA , 

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Spencer Dawkins]

I don't want to debate with Ross on what is, after all, a matter
of tastes, but was pleasantly surprised to see that we didn't
run out of food (and that's NOT been my experience at previous
receptions). Not a HUGE selection (Aaron described the pasta to
me as "three different pasta dishes with the same sauce"), but
very serviceable.

Thanks for improving the quantity aspect of the reception!
(adding a "Q" to PACT?)

Spencer

--- Ross Finlayson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Judging by Sunday evening's reception, it seems that the
> cutbacks in food 
> service at IETF meetings have already begun :-(
> 
>   Ross.
> 
> 
> ___
> This message was passed through
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what
> to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 16. mars 2003 10:30 -0500 shogunx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Harald,
I have a facility that will fit the purposes of the IETF in Daytona.  We
have an international airport, and we can probably get a tremendous deal
on the ballrooms if we can guarantee the occupancy of the hotel during a
slow season... november-february.  Local vendors can satisfy food needs
efficiently.  When you mentioned corporate sponsor the last time we spoke,
did you mean that we need someone to cover the costs described below?
Traditionally, the host has been covering the cost of the terminal room and 
the Tuesday night social event. This may change going forward - we'll talk 
about this on Wednesday. And of course, both US IETF meetings this year are 
going forward without the traditional sponsors.

If you have numbers, please send them to Marcia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), who 
does the meeting planning and negotiation with hotel sites.

  Harald

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Ross Finlayson]

Judging by Sunday evening's reception, it seems that the cutbacks in food 
service at IETF meetings have already begun :-(

	Ross.

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[shogunx]

Harald,
I have a facility that will fit the purposes of the IETF in Daytona.  We
have an international airport, and we can probably get a tremendous deal
on the ballrooms if we can guarantee the occupancy of the hotel during a
slow season... november-february.  Local vendors can satisfy food needs
efficiently.  When you mentioned corporate sponsor the last time we spoke,
did you mean that we need someone to cover the costs described below?

Scott





On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>
>
> --On 15. mars 2003 18:20 -0800 Marshall Rose
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > maybe i'm not following, but it looks like
> >
> > (food + meeting room) / 3 = $350,921
> >
> > which is still $113K more than getting the meeting rooms only.
>
> I don't have the numbers that break these down per meeting, but if I
> remember rightly, the proper breakdown is APPROXIMATELY:
>
> London: 190K meeting rooms + 300K food cost
> US meetings: No room cost,   280K food cost
>
> All aspects of London were expensive, but I don't know how expensive.
>
> > the one thing that the 2001 numbers don't tell us is what we're spending
> > on the terminal rooms (since in 2001 they were donated, hoorah!). seems
> > to me that the only thing we should be providing is wifi/10bT and maybe
> > a printer or two. anyone who can't bring a laptop to an ietf meeting is
> > probably doesn't need connectivity anyway...
>
> San Francisco will be the first time in a long while we actually have those
> numbers, paid out of our own budget.
> The BIG number in these discussions is the cost of the access line to the
> hotel - the discussions on price of this single item for San Francisco
> apparently ranged all the way from 10 KUSD to 80 KUSD, depending (among
> other things) on the shortest period of time the local-access company was
> willing to sell this service for.
>
> This time, the SunRays in the terminal room were donated; if they hadn't
> been, there wouldn't have been any. The laptop drops are pretty cheap to
> provide.
>
> > i'm sure wednesday night there will be a spirited discussion...
>
> Oh yes! And I *do* hope there will be some enlightenment, and not just
> heat. it's easy to spend all the time nitpicking over some
> 10.000-dollar line item, when the smallest change needed to get the
> situation fixed runs into the hundreds of thousands.
>
>   Harald
>
>
>
>
>

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from san francisco
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Michael Richardson]

> "jamal" == jamal  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jamal> Didnt see any mention of Canada as a venue: Ottawa,Toronto,Montreal

  For Ottawa... Unless the IETF returns to a consistent 700 person size,
there just isn't a hotel with enough convention space in one building. 

  Mind you, there are some empty Nortel buildings that seat 1500!

]   ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.   |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[
] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[John Lazzaro]

Instead of trying to fix the current model (meeting fees subsidize a
publishing arm), it might make sense to consider having the publishing
arm be self-funded.

How do non-profit journals stay solvent? A mix of four income streams:

 -1- Subscriptions

 -2- Page charges for authors

 -3- Advertising

 -4- Value-added services

I think most of us would agree that -1- isn't in our DNA.  But some
combination of -2-, -3-, and -4- might make WGs, the IESG, and the RFC
editor self-funding.

-
John Lazzaro -- Research Specialist -- CS Division -- EECS -- UC Berkeley
lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro
-

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[David Morris]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Marshall T. Rose wrote:

> put another way: how many folks are willing to pay an extra $300 per meeting
> to cover the food?

A productive compromise would be to retain the break time drinks and
perhaps snacks but get rid of the breakfast ... and perhaps the arrival
reception food (might be able to package the arrival reception as a buffet
with an explicit extra ticket required).

In many of the venues I attended IETF meetings at, there was no way that
local commercial facilities could server the impulse demand function of
all the people getting out of one session and wanting in a short time to
begin another.

Dave Morris

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[jamal]

Didnt see any mention of Canada as a venue: Ottawa,Toronto,Montreal
are all very accessible, more affordable and i think would be
considered outside the US.

cheers,
jamal

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist]

Speaking from a purely extremely selfish point of view, as a North
American, how much would it help if we were to cut back to one meeting
outside North America every 5-6 IETF's, instead of once a year, which
seems to be the current rate?
I was not able to get travel funding to go to Yokohama, and I will
almost certainly not be able to attend the summer IETF in Austria.
Oh, you mean we would have NAIETF, APIETF and EMEAIETF?

I personally pay a lot less for travel inside the Nordics so perhaps we 
could have the meeting rotating between Finland, Sweden, Norway and 
Denmark?

Maybe not.

- kurtis -

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Michael Richardson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-


> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was
Harald> even more expensive than Yokohama.  With the lack of sponsoring
Harald> of terminal rooms, the difference is much less, but still
Harald> significant. The reason for the varying prediction of
Harald> per-attendee cost for 2004-2005 is that we are considering 2
Harald> non-US meetings in 2004 - but if they are definitely more

  I think that this is a good idea. Do you mean outside US, or outside North
America? Is it the continent, or the country?
  As has been said many times in the past, returning to the same venue over
and over again really isn't a problem to me. How a about Minneapolis,
Montreal, and... well... I can't think of another "M"-city that we've been to
already. 

Harald> would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about
Harald> others' we whould expect slightly lower per-meeting
Harald> attendance, but many would indeed feel obligated to go to all
Harald> four, so would pay more, I think. Whether they would get more
Harald> things done is an open question.

  If going to four meetings provided more time for actual workshops, like
was just had at ISC for DNSSEC - three days of intensive working together
in a small group, then we'd get more done. 
  I am of the opinion that the IETF needs far more organized time for
"running code" before "rough consensus" is tested for.

]   ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.   |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[
] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQCVAwUBPnTGAYqHRg3pndX9AQH8VwP/WWZAiK+AELccIIUuA1o/6JSddG98ZIXM
+i8HkVsYmYtl9T4jRC0AvlQPXTKuiJXhP0C7yVjY62rNwGZjlIZa4CjByVz9D5Oo
MqRGQ3FUKDQICSDS9d7ngiuN/tJUP8LZT6D5YyaQ0OVIXBzAi+axy9wzqZR7p+Dh
khpTaTPf2P0=
=QTOD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Pekka Savola]

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Scott W Brim wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 01:28:34PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
> > So, with the estimate of 1500 people per session, that makes 76$/IETF for 
> > food and stuff.
> > 
> > 15$/day, not too bad, IMO.
> 
> That's about what most people would spend on breakfast themselves, so
> having people pay for their own food wouldn't save them any money.

snacks on breaks, drinks etc. are valuable to me at least.
 
> > Of course, if that'd help, we could just split off "food + beveradge 
> > fees" from the attendance, e.g. extra 10 or 15 dollars per day or 50-75$ 
> > for the whole thing.  Paying could be voluntary, even -- but it'd be on 
> > your conscience if you ate without paying.
> 
> What would this level of detail cost in extra secretariat overhead?

day-based: probably lot; yes/no, I will want to eat/drink, probably 
little.

-- 
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Scott W Brim]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 01:28:34PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
> So, with the estimate of 1500 people per session, that makes 76$/IETF for 
> food and stuff.
> 
> 15$/day, not too bad, IMO.

That's about what most people would spend on breakfast themselves, so
having people pay for their own food wouldn't save them any money.

> Of course, if that'd help, we could just split off "food + beveradge 
> fees" from the attendance, e.g. extra 10 or 15 dollars per day or 50-75$ 
> for the whole thing.  Paying could be voluntary, even -- but it'd be on 
> your conscience if you ate without paying.

What would this level of detail cost in extra secretariat overhead?

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Marshall T. Rose]

> Oh yes! And I *do* hope there will be some enlightenment, and not just
> heat. it's easy to spend all the time nitpicking over some
> 10.000-dollar line item, when the smallest change needed to get the
> situation fixed runs into the hundreds of thousands.

and i agree. which is why i'd like to see some apples-to-apples comparisons
to answer questions like this:

how much is the food subsidy really costing us? could we simply cover the
gap by bumping the registration cost by another $100/meeting?  (which is the
conclusion i come to after reading pekka's email)

what kind of a deal can we get if we do a multi-year contract with a hotel
in the "off" season? i.e., minneapolis in january, dallas in july.

does the cost of having meetings outside the continental us mean that we
should be charging a significantly higher attendence fee when we have
meetings there? or, should we simply have fewer of them outside the
continental us?

i think that each of these three things have implications in the six
figures...

/mtr

ps: and i still favor cutting back access to basic connectivity and nothing
more.

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 15. mars 2003 18:20 -0800 Marshall Rose 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

maybe i'm not following, but it looks like

(food + meeting room) / 3 = $350,921

which is still $113K more than getting the meeting rooms only.
I don't have the numbers that break these down per meeting, but if I 
remember rightly, the proper breakdown is APPROXIMATELY:

London: 190K meeting rooms + 300K food cost
US meetings: No room cost,   280K food cost
All aspects of London were expensive, but I don't know how expensive.

the one thing that the 2001 numbers don't tell us is what we're spending
on the terminal rooms (since in 2001 they were donated, hoorah!). seems
to me that the only thing we should be providing is wifi/10bT and maybe
a printer or two. anyone who can't bring a laptop to an ietf meeting is
probably doesn't need connectivity anyway...
San Francisco will be the first time in a long while we actually have those 
numbers, paid out of our own budget.
The BIG number in these discussions is the cost of the access line to the 
hotel - the discussions on price of this single item for San Francisco 
apparently ranged all the way from 10 KUSD to 80 KUSD, depending (among 
other things) on the shortest period of time the local-access company was 
willing to sell this service for.

This time, the SunRays in the terminal room were donated; if they hadn't 
been, there wouldn't have been any. The laptop drops are pretty cheap to 
provide.

i'm sure wednesday night there will be a spirited discussion...
Oh yes! And I *do* hope there will be some enlightenment, and not just 
heat. it's easy to spend all the time nitpicking over some 
10.000-dollar line item, when the smallest change needed to get the 
situation fixed runs into the hundreds of thousands.

 Harald

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Randy Bush]

> 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?

randy

RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Mark Prior]

At 7:56 AM -0500 16/3/03, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
What about South America and India.  I've heard that both are
substantially less expensive than the US/Europe/Japan for
vacation accomodations.  Does the same hold for convention costs?
Out of curiosity I would like to know how the Adelaide meeting 
compared since I never bothered to ask when I hosted.

Mark.

RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Margaret Wasserman]

What about South America and India.  I've heard that both are
substantially less expensive than the US/Europe/Japan for
vacation accomodations.  Does the same hold for convention costs?
Margaret

At 11:57 AM 3/16/2003 +0100, Tomson Eric \(Yahoo.fr\) wrote:
Brussels is the less expensive "major" (capital of the E.U., NATO's HQ)
city in Europe. Far less expensive than London, Paris, Rome, Frankfurt,
Geneva,...
And since recently, Eastern Europe can also offer good commodities now,
at quite low rates...
-Original Message-
From: Jan Meijer
Sent: dimanche 16 mars 2003 3:48
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
> We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even

> more expensive than Yokohama.

Aren't London and Yokohama quite expensive relative to other possible
alternatives in the area?  I don't know about Asia but there must be
well-connected (flightwise) places in Europe that cost less then London
to host a meeting.
Jan

___
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Pekka Savola]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Marshall Rose wrote:
> maybe i'm not following, but it looks like
> 
> (food + meeting room) / 3 = $350,921
> 
> which is still $113K more than getting the meeting rooms only.

So, with the estimate of 1500 people per session, that makes 76$/IETF for 
food and stuff.

15$/day, not too bad, IMO.

Of course, if that'd help, we could just split off "food + beveradge 
fees" from the attendance, e.g. extra 10 or 15 dollars per day or 50-75$ 
for the whole thing.  Paying could be voluntary, even -- but it'd be on 
your conscience if you ate without paying.

I certainly would be willing (to have my company :-) pay that; all in all, 
it's *much* more convenient than to go eat breakfast, go elsewhere looking 
for cookies, soda and stuff.

-- 
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Tomson Eric \(Yahoo.fr\)]

Brussels is the less expensive "major" (capital of the E.U., NATO's HQ)
city in Europe. Far less expensive than London, Paris, Rome, Frankfurt,
Geneva,...

And since recently, Eastern Europe can also offer good commodities now,
at quite low rates...

-Original Message-
From: Jan Meijer
Sent: dimanche 16 mars 2003 3:48
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

> We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even

> more expensive than Yokohama.

Aren't London and Yokohama quite expensive relative to other possible
alternatives in the area?  I don't know about Asia but there must be
well-connected (flightwise) places in Europe that cost less then London
to host a meeting.

Jan

___
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:46:12AM -0800, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even more 
> expensive than Yokohama.

Speaking from a purely extremely selfish point of view, as a North
American, how much would it help if we were to cut back to one meeting
outside North America every 5-6 IETF's, instead of once a year, which
seems to be the current rate?

I was not able to get travel funding to go to Yokohama, and I will
almost certainly not be able to attend the summer IETF in Austria.

At one point, I was told that Europeans were paying roughly the same
for intra-European travel as they were to travel to North America, but
North Americans were paying more to travel to Europe.  Is this still
disparity (seemingly caused by inefficiencies and the lack of
competition in the European travel market, coupled with the high
expenses and low profit margins of the various national carriers)
still true?

Times are incredibly tough right now, from all over

- Ted

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Eliot Lear]

Stephen Casner wrote:
On a more serious note, IETF used to function with the same attendance
numbers as now.  Are the costs now out of line with what they were
then?
Perhaps this was due to a hefty government subsidy that is no longer there?

Eliot

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Marshall T. Rose]

> > i suppose we could say that the meeting rooms are subsidizing
> > the food, but frankly, i'd prefer that we didn't spend the additional
> > $340K/year, and folks who want food can have breakfast at the hotel
> > restaurant and snacks at whatever's available at the lobby level.
>
> As most people I know of have to eat and drink, this suggestion would
> only increase the cost of going to IETF meetings, and the ones who
> would win something would be the hotel restaurants.

sure, but why does the group have to subsidize it? the problem, as you point
out, is that there aren't that many parameters to play with. saying "we have
to keep the food" may very well make the problem insoluable (or at least too
costly to solve). in other words, if most of the money is spent on food,
then it really doesn't matter how much we cut back on the other things, does
it?

whether it's the hotel restaurants, or vendors who sublet from the hotel, or
the starbucks across the street, i don't care. what i do care about is the
$340K/year figure (if accurate, harald still needs to confirm that).

put another way: how many folks are willing to pay an extra $300 per meeting
to cover the food?


> I also agree with Harald that the convenient food service makes us
> work more efficient, and I further think it is an important social
> component.

in that case, maybe we should subsidize the bar bofs as well...


> To reduce the costs, John made a good point about terminal rooms,
> and especially computers. These days, providing wireless
> connectivity would probably be sufficient.

and i agree.

> Since we do not have that many parameters to play with, I think we
> will have to adjust the meeting fees to the current financial
> situation. What we should further do is to make sure people can
> participate even if they can not afford to go to the meetings
> (f2f meetings are supposed to be an optional component of IETF
> work, right?).

a worthy goal, regardless of the financial situation...

/mtr

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Andy Bierman]

At 03:20 PM 3/15/2003 -0500, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> My guess is that going to two would hurt income, unless we raise fees by 
>> 50% - the same people would come, I think.
>> Going to four would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about 
>> others' we whould expect slightly lower per-meeting attendance, but 
>> many would indeed feel obligated to go to all four, so would pay more, I 
>> think. Whether they would get more things done is an open question.
>
>I hate the idea of more travel, plus I suspect 4 may be
>harder to justify to management.  However, try as we may to
>do things "right," the IETF is increasingly doing its work
>at meetings instead of mailing lists.  If we can't fix it we
>should probably accept it.  Also, more regular meetings
>might tend to discourage interim meetings, which would be
>excellent.

I agree.  Given that the work of the IETF is centered on the
publication of documents, and given that most I-Ds are published
near the I-D cutoff deadlines, it stands to reason that IETF
productivity will increase by 33% if the number of publication 
cycles per year is increased from 3 to 4.


>Melinda

Andy

RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)]

> i suppose we could say that the meeting rooms are subsidizing 
> the food, but frankly, i'd prefer that we didn't spend the additional 
> $340K/year, and folks who want food can have breakfast at the hotel
> restaurant and snacks at whatever's available at the lobby level.

As most people I know of have to eat and drink, this suggestion would
only increase the cost of going to IETF meetings, and the ones who
would win something would be the hotel restaurants.

I also agree with Harald that the convenient food service makes us
work more efficient, and I further think it is an important social
component.

To reduce the costs, John made a good point about terminal rooms,
and especially computers. These days, providing wireless 
connectivity would probably be sufficient.

Since we do not have that many parameters to play with, I think we
will have to adjust the meeting fees to the current financial
situation. What we should further do is to make sure people can
participate even if they can not afford to go to the meetings
(f2f meetings are supposed to be an optional component of IETF
work, right?).

/L-E  

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Jan Meijer]

> We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even more
> expensive than Yokohama.

Aren't London and Yokohama quite expensive relative to other possible
alternatives in the area?  I don't know about Asia but there must be
well-connected (flightwise) places in Europe that cost less then London to
host a meeting.

Jan

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Marshall Rose]

> > harald - many thanks for making this material available. would it be
> > possible for you to provide just a slight amount of additional material
> > in your presentation, specifically, could we get a breakdown of the
> > following meeting costs:
> >
> > - food
> > - connectivity/terminal room/etc.
> > - other major items
> 
> The 2001 figures are available on the IETF Chair's pages - the 2002 figures 
> aren't that much different. They will be published at the same level of 
> details as soon as the auditors are done with them; I summed these together 
> until they were reasonably legible when printed on a slide

thanks!


to quote from http://www.ietf.org/u/chair/financials.html :

>>> - Food & Beverage $862,500
>>> - Audio/Visual$127,337
>>> - Room Rental $190,265
>>> - Other Meeting Exp $1,925
>>> Total IETF Meeting Expenses $1,182,027
>>> ...
>>> The cost for "food and beverage" covers participants' breakfasts, coffe
>>> and break food at IETF events. In the US, this is one way in which
>>> hotels recover the cost of meeting rooms; in one recent query, the
>>> secretariat got a quote on meeting rooms without food for USD 238.000
>>> (at 50% off list price). At a similar meeting where we got the meeting
>>> rooms for free, our food and beverages bill was approximately USD
>>> 250.000. Outside the US, we are usually charged separately for the
>>> meeting rooms and the food. 

> check the notes on the 2001 page - it seems that hotels in the US want to 
> take just about the same amount off us for meeting rooms + food as they 
> would otherwise take for the meeting rooms alone. Bizarre, but that seems 
> to be the case.

maybe i'm not following, but it looks like

(food + meeting room) / 3 = $350,921

which is still $113K more than getting the meeting rooms only.


> In the case of a 30-minute break, I think it actually pays for itself in 
> terms of manpower time - the time spent snarfing cookie + coffee and 
> continuing conversation is a lot more productive than the time spent in the 
> queue at Starbuck's, bolting the coffee and then jumping back into the next 
> meeting. OTOH, perhaps people could live from lunch to dinner without 
> cookies???

harald, please, banks takes cash, not goodwill. if we want to say it
pays for itself, then someone better start collecting money for the food.

i suppose we could say that the meeting rooms are subsidizing the food,
but frankly, i'd prefer that we didn't spend the additional $340K/year,
and folks who want food can have breakfast at the hotel restaurant and
snacks at whatever's available at the lobby level.

now maybe we can't get a better deal 'cause the hotels know they have
a racket. fine. however, we still fill-up whatever hotel we end
up. perhaps we ought to pick one or two hotels to have meetings at and
do a multi-year contract. given the sorry state of the economy, seems to
me that we ought to be able to find a hotel willing to do a deal.  we
can even follow casner's lead and book a hotel in silicon valley.


the one thing that the 2001 numbers don't tell us is what we're spending
on the terminal rooms (since in 2001 they were donated, hoorah!). seems
to me that the only thing we should be providing is wifi/10bT and maybe
a printer or two. anyone who can't bring a laptop to an ietf meeting is
probably doesn't need connectivity anyway...


i'm sure wednesday night there will be a spirited discussion...

/mtr

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Pekka Savola]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Stephen Casner wrote:
> After the last IETF meeting that was held in San Jose, a decree was
> issued that no future meetings be held in Silicon Valley because of
> unmanageably large attendance.
> 
> Harald's slides say that part of the problem we now face is reduced
> revenue due to reduced attendance.
> 
> The answer seems obvious to me.
> 
> [Um, yes, I do live in Silicon Valley.]
> 
> On a more serious note, IETF used to function with the same attendance
> numbers as now.  Are the costs now out of line with what they were
> then?

Good idea!  Let's raise the registration fee by 500$ for US based IETF 
attenders as they have the capability to pay more due to lower travel 
costs :-).

The closer the more it should cost!

-- 
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Tom Lord]

(from the peanut gallery:)

   OTOH, perhaps people could live from lunch to dinner without
   cookies???

Would better integration with local economies around meetings help?
Would people volunteer to scout out alternatives?  Aren't hotel and
starbucks cookies much more expensive than small-business cookies?
(Sure, the hotels will "tax" the "imports" in the "total package
cost".)

Hotel-residing meeting attendants:  spend more of your per-diem on
tips at the hotel to (sorta) compensate.   In the long term, that'll
bring down "total package cost", too.)

-t

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 15. mars 2003 14:59 -0800 Marshall Rose 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Wednesday at the IESG plenary, I'm doing a presentation about IETF
financials.
...
harald - many thanks for making this material available. would it be
possible for you to provide just a slight amount of additional material
in your presentation, specifically, could we get a breakdown of the
following meeting costs:
- food
- connectivity/terminal room/etc.
- other major items
The 2001 figures are available on the IETF Chair's pages - the 2002 figures 
aren't that much different. They will be published at the same level of 
details as soon as the auditors are done with them; I summed these together 
until they were reasonably legible when printed on a slide

it's hard to figure out what to optimize unless we understand the
relative sizes of these things.
for example, my gut reaction is to say "just cancel the food" on the
theory that people can pay for this themselves, with a very small
efficiency hit. in contrast, having everyone arrange their own
connectivity would be amusing, but highly inefficient.
check the notes on the 2001 page - it seems that hotels in the US want to 
take just about the same amount off us for meeting rooms + food as they 
would otherwise take for the meeting rooms alone. Bizarre, but that seems 
to be the case.

Outside the US, the story is different - there we pay for the rooms no 
matter what, but I think the "total package cost" is a matter of 
negotiation in that case too.

In the case of a 30-minute break, I think it actually pays for itself in 
terms of manpower time - the time spent snarfing cookie + coffee and 
continuing conversation is a lot more productive than the time spent in the 
queue at Starbuck's, bolting the coffee and then jumping back into the next 
meeting. OTOH, perhaps people could live from lunch to dinner without 
cookies???

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Stephen Casner]

After the last IETF meeting that was held in San Jose, a decree was
issued that no future meetings be held in Silicon Valley because of
unmanageably large attendance.

Harald's slides say that part of the problem we now face is reduced
revenue due to reduced attendance.

The answer seems obvious to me.

[Um, yes, I do live in Silicon Valley.]

On a more serious note, IETF used to function with the same attendance
numbers as now.  Are the costs now out of line with what they were
then?

-- Steve

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Ross Finlayson]

Another random thought: Could any money be saved by not meeting on 
Friday?  For IETF meetings (such as the upcoming meeting in SF) without a 
social event, the Tuesday evening slot is empty.  Couldn't the Friday slots 
have been moved to Tuesday evening instead?

	Ross.

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Marshall Rose]

> On Wednesday at the IESG plenary, I'm doing a presentation about IETF 
> financials.
> ...

harald - many thanks for making this material available. would it be possible
for you to provide just a slight amount of additional material in your
presentation, specifically, could we get a breakdown of the following
meeting costs:

- food
- connectivity/terminal room/etc.
- other major items

it's hard to figure out what to optimize unless we understand the
relative sizes of these things.

for example, my gut reaction is to say "just cancel the food" on the
theory that people can pay for this themselves, with a very small
efficiency hit. in contrast, having everyone arrange their own
connectivity would be amusing, but highly inefficient.

/mtr

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Jeffrey Altman]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even 
more expensive than Yokohama.
With the lack of sponsoring of terminal rooms, the difference is much 
less, but still significant. The reason for the varying prediction of 
per-attendee cost for 2004-2005 is that we are considering 2 non-US 
meetings in 2004 - but if they are definitely more expensive than US 
meetings even when we get sponsors outside the US and no sponsors 
inside the US, we may have to reevaluate.
Having access to wireless networks and the Internet throughout the 
meetings are certainly a desireable feature.  However, they are hardly a 
deciding factor on whether or not I attend an IETF meeting.  In many 
ways, if there was no network we might actually get more done.  What 
percentage of the costs of a meeting are due to the terminal room and 
related expenses?

- Does going to two, or four, meetings per year help or hurt?


My guess is that going to two would hurt income, unless we raise fees 
by 50% - the same people would come, I think.
Going to four would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know 
about others' we whould expect slightly lower per-meeting 
attendance, but many would indeed feel obligated to go to all four, so 
would pay more, I think. Whether they would get more things done is an 
open question.

The real question is "to what extent is it reasonable for the costs of 
running the IETF be funded by relying on attendance fees?"  It has 
always struck me as odd that the people who volunteer to do the work of 
the IETF pay for the privilege. 

The IETF does not really function as a "standards body" in the 
traditional sense as it is not funded either by government grants nor by 
a consortium of industry.  The IETF does not develop mandatory standards 
which must be adhered to in order to have certified products.  Instead 
everything we do is voluntary.  Not only is the work voluntary but so is 
the output.

In many ways the IETF is the ultimate open source project.  As with many 
open source projects, the survival of the project is dependent upon 
those that do the work having alternative sources of income to support 
the efforts.  I have never felt that was an appropriate funding model 
for any work that I have done.  [If only I could be ensured of a 
comfortable lifestyle for myself and my family I would glady spend all 
of my efforts volunteering and give away everything I do for free.] On 
the other hand, the work of the IETF

It would seem that we would want those that benefit from the results of 
the IETF to pay.  The problem is that the benefits the IETF provides to 
the Internet community are so hard to quantify and put a monetary price 
on.  Nor is it easy to determine who the beneficiaries are?  Is it the 
end-user behind a cable modem?  Or the ISP?  Or the operating systems, 
hardware, and application vendors? 

Should fees be taxes on the use of RFCs?  Or perhaps a tax on IP 
addresses?  Or domain names? 

Who would care the most if the IETF were to disappear? 

Would it make sense to form sub-areas of the IETF that are funded as 
Industry Consortiums with membership fees and contributions so that the 
rest of the working groups could be open?

It seems to me that those groups that come to the IETF seeking the 
expertise of the IETF participants, the IESG review, and the IETF RFC 
publication status would be more than willing to pay for the privilege 
of bringing their nearly completed work into the body.  (Assuming of 
course that the IETF thought the work was worthwhile.)

I realize that this e-mail is mostly just rambling thoughts but there 
are no obvious answers jumping out to solve the funding problems of the 
IETF.

- Jeffrey Altman

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Melinda Shore]

> My guess is that going to two would hurt income, unless we raise fees by 
> 50% - the same people would come, I think.
> Going to four would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about 
> others' we whould expect slightly lower per-meeting attendance, but 
> many would indeed feel obligated to go to all four, so would pay more, I 
> think. Whether they would get more things done is an open question.

I hate the idea of more travel, plus I suspect 4 may be
harder to justify to management.  However, try as we may to
do things "right," the IETF is increasingly doing its work
at meetings instead of mailing lists.  If we can't fix it we
should probably accept it.  Also, more regular meetings
might tend to discourage interim meetings, which would be
excellent.

Melinda

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[vinton g. cerf]

that would have to be a decision of PIR and its board - ISOC does not,
at least as I understand it, have any direct access to the .org
revenues. ISOC does select the PIR board but otherwise there is no
financial connection. 

Vint

At 12:08 PM 3/15/2003 -0800, Rick Wesson wrote:


>Harald,
>
>> The short and sweet of it is: Unless we change something, our current
>> funding methods won't pay for our current work.
>> At the presentation, I'll ask the floor what they think about various ideas
>> for improving the situation.
>
>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?
>
>It only seems like the right thing to do, at least it did to those of us
>who worked on the bid [2]
>
>So, couldn't the ISOC make the same commitment fund the IETF and IAB?
>
>
>-rick
>
>[1] http://trusted.resource.org/Support/ISOC/intent_to_donate.pdf
>[2] http://trusted.resource.org/

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Rick Wesson]

Harald,

> The short and sweet of it is: Unless we change something, our current
> funding methods won't pay for our current work.
> At the presentation, I'll ask the floor what they think about various ideas
> for improving the situation.

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?

It only seems like the right thing to do, at least it did to those of us
who worked on the bid [2]

So, couldn't the ISOC make the same commitment fund the IETF and IAB?


-rick

[1] http://trusted.resource.org/Support/ISOC/intent_to_donate.pdf
[2] http://trusted.resource.org/

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 15. mars 2003 10:12 -0800 Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

Hi, Harald,

It's good to have this presentation in advance of the meeting.

A couple of questions follow:

- Without asking for details - was Yokohama unusually expensive
 for reasons that are likely to recur? I'm curious whether this
was just because the meeting was in Japan, for instance, or
whether we usually expect higher costs outside of North
America...
We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even more 
expensive than Yokohama.
With the lack of sponsoring of terminal rooms, the difference is much less, 
but still significant. The reason for the varying prediction of 
per-attendee cost for 2004-2005 is that we are considering 2 non-US 
meetings in 2004 - but if they are definitely more expensive than US 
meetings even when we get sponsors outside the US and no sponsors inside 
the US, we may have to reevaluate.
- I'm not the brightest candle in the menorah, but - I would
have guessed that we would see the number of attendees
decreasing, due to (1) general industry business conditions, (2)
the telecom nuclear winter, strongly affecting SubIP attendance,

and (3) our reluctance to take on new APPS work, so it goes
elsewhere. Your presentation projected a slight increase - does
a decrease make things better, or worse?
Definitely worse.

- Does going to two, or four, meetings per year help or hurt?
My guess is that going to two would hurt income, unless we raise fees by 
50% - the same people would come, I think.
Going to four would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about 
others' we whould expect slightly lower per-meeting attendance, but 
many would indeed feel obligated to go to all four, so would pay more, I 
think. Whether they would get more things done is an open question.
- Of course we can raise meeting fees, but we're decrying the
influx of professional standards weenies now. Is the expectation
that people really just come to IETF when they want to
standardize something, and then go away?
I'm more worried about the differential impact raising fees would have - it 
would mean very little for the "professional standardizers" from the 
vendors, but would have a negative effect on the self-funded, the academics 
and other groups that help us preserve a multifaceted perspective on what 
the Internet is and should be.
And I'm sure these won't be the last questions that people
ask...
Assuredly not!

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Spencer Dawkins]

Hi, Harald,

It's good to have this presentation in advance of the meeting.

A couple of questions follow:

- Without asking for details - was Yokohama unusually expensive
 for reasons that are likely to recur? I'm curious whether this 
was just because the meeting was in Japan, for instance, or 
whether we usually expect higher costs outside of North 
America...

- I'm not the brightest candle in the menorah, but - I would 
have guessed that we would see the number of attendees 
decreasing, due to (1) general industry business conditions, (2)

the telecom nuclear winter, strongly affecting SubIP attendance,

and (3) our reluctance to take on new APPS work, so it goes 
elsewhere. Your presentation projected a slight increase - does 
a decrease make things better, or worse?

- Does going to two, or four, meetings per year help or hurt?

- Of course we can raise meeting fees, but we're decrying the 
influx of professional standards weenies now. Is the expectation

that people really just come to IETF when they want to 
standardize something, and then go away?

And I'm sure these won't be the last questions that people
ask...

Spencer

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[Ole J. Jacobsen]

Jeg tror du mener:

http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/march2003/

Ole

PS. Start learning Norwegian today, everyone :-)



Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj



On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> On Wednesday at the IESG plenary, I'm doing a presentation about IETF
> financials.
>
> The short and sweet of it is: Unless we change something, our current
> funding methods won't pay for our current work.
> At the presentation, I'll ask the floor what they think about various ideas
> for improving the situation.
>
> But since you all will be better able to give me your thoughtful opinions
> after having thought about it for a while, it only makes sense to send out
> the presentation first.
>
> I put up the presentation at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/march2002/ - in
> Powerpoint and PDF formats. It's still going to change before I give the
> presentation, but the high points are definitely there.
>
> Your comments are welcome!
>
>  Harald
>
>