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,
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
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,
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
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
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]
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
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.
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
ICANN is getting millions, and not giving back much. Dismantle ICANN,
redirect money to IETF. Running few root servers should not cost
millions...
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
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,
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!
...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
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
--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
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
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...
Everyone bring a baked good to Vienna...
and send coals to newcastle
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
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
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
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
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
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
Judging by Sunday evening's reception, it seems that the cutbacks in food
service at IETF meetings have already begun :-(
Ross.
--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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
--- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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.
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
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
--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
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
-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
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
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
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
put another way: how many folks are willing to pay an extra $300 per meeting
to cover the food?
A productive compromise would be to retain the break time drinks and
perhaps snacks but get rid of the breakfast ... and perhaps the arrival
reception
Instead of trying to fix the current model (meeting fees subsidize a
publishing arm), it might make sense to consider having the publishing
arm be self-funded.
How do non-profit journals stay solvent? A mix of four income streams:
-1- Subscriptions
-2- Page charges for authors
-3-
jamal == jamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jamal Didnt see any mention of Canada as a venue: Ottawa,Toronto,Montreal
For Ottawa... Unless the IETF returns to a consistent 700 person size,
there just isn't a hotel with enough convention space in one building.
Mind you, there are some
Harald,
I have a facility that will fit the purposes of the IETF in Daytona. We
have an international airport, and we can probably get a tremendous deal
on the ballrooms if we can guarantee the occupancy of the hotel during a
slow season... november-february. Local vendors can satisfy food needs
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 01:28:34PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
So, with the estimate of 1500 people per session, that makes 76$/IETF for
food and stuff.
15$/day, not too bad, IMO.
That's about what most people would spend on breakfast themselves, so
having people pay for their own
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 01:28:34PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
So, with the estimate of 1500 people per session, that makes 76$/IETF for
food and stuff.
15$/day, not too bad, IMO.
That's about what most people would spend on breakfast
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
--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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
--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
(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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
79 matches
Mail list logo
