> This is something I have discussed with several people
> and every one seems to agree.
>
> The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously
> high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with
> no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for
> registration fee alone for attending
> Bonney Kooper wrote:
> The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously
> high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with
> no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for
> registration fee alone for attending IETF sessions.
I paid out of my own pocket, and I do not think tha
At 02:34 PM 3/16/02 -0800, Bonney Kooper wrote:
>The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously
>high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with
>no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for
>registration fee alone for attending IETF sessions.
>This is effectively the member
Marshall Rose wrote:
>>This is something I have discussed with several people
>>and every one seems to agree.
>>
>>The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously
>>high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with
>>no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for
>>registration f
I believe that the pie chart of IETF financing was shown
at the London IETF (which I missed), but the facts are
simple enough: the meetings are subsidised by industrial
sponsors, and the IETF secretariat is funded out of the
resulting surplus from the meeting fees. In addition,
the Internet Societ
I think every one missed the point due to my not being
a bit more precise, and using a very strong word. I
drafted that mail on my very small screen mail device
which made clear thinking a bit harder :-(.
I agree that the word the "öutrageous" was too strong
a word and clearly doesn't apply to t
Marshall Rose wrote:
> Joe - since you replied to my note rather than bonney's, i am obliged
> to reply.
>
> Unlike both of you, i am not expressing an opinion on the fees. What i
> am saying is that neither of you have any data.
I had data - from other conferences. Granted, I'm asserting the
On Mar 17, Bonney Kooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think every one missed the point due to my not being
> a bit more precise, and using a very strong word.
I understood your point fine - what I had problems understanding were the
responses. For people to come back with arguments like 'Do y
Bonney -
1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150 penalty for forcing us to
staff the registration desk with people authorized to handle credit card
transactions and so forth; I don't have numbers on whether the penalty is
enough to pay for the overhead.
The average fee paid in 2001
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered
> corporate membership program like all other standards
> forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums
> and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per
Paul Robinson wrote:
...
> 1. More money will be raised - Cisco et al are going to send their people
> regardless, and the point where they do not see it as being economically
> viable to do so is going to be quite high
That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF att
>I suggest let IETF institute a tiered
>corporate membership program like all other standards
>forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums
>and MPLS forums etc.)
Yes--and they get what they pay for: a consortium to rubber-stamp their
proposals.
/===
>large companies are
>just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The
whole
>idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way
companies
>manage expenses.
In fact, large corporations can be *more* sensitive to meeting costs,
because they have bet
On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance
> since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are
> just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The
BTW, slightly better than just not showing up is watching the
multicast feed.
In fact, the more people who choose to participate this way
will indeed serve to make a justification to make this better,
i.e. real-time feedback from the network, etc.
And before anyone starts whining about not havi
I'm an individual with a modest income who generally pays his own way
to attend IETF meetings. I agree that the costs are too high. However,
I'd be opposed to a scheme that charged corporations more, because then
they'd expect their word to carry more weight. IMHO the only way to
make sure t
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 15:59 + Paul Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due
> to the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word
> 'ludicrous' is overused on this list, but I think I've found a situati
g'day,
Paul Robinson wrote:
>
> On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance
> > since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are
> > just as sensitive to meeting cos
Paul Robinson wrote:
>
> On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole
> > idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way companies
> > manage expenses.
>
> I can assure you
Joe - since you replied to my note rather than bonney's, i am obliged
to reply.
Unlike both of you, i am not expressing an opinion on the fees. What i
am saying is that neither of you have any data. Let's look at some
actual numbers, and we can then have a reasoned discussion...
/mtr
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 08:17 -0800 "Kevin C. Almeroth"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, slightly better than just not showing up is watching the
> multicast feed.
>
> In fact, the more people who choose to participate this way
> will indeed serve to make a justification to make this better
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered
> corporate membership program like all other standards
> forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums
> and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered
> corporate membership program like all other standards
> forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums
> and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 08:17 AM -0800 "Kevin C. Almeroth"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And before anyone starts whining about not having multicast access,
> the alternative is to send out unicast streams. And of course this
> creates an immense cost in terms of additional bandwidth needed
2 3:45 AM
To: Bonney Kooper
Cc: Marshall Rose; Joe Touch; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
On Mar 17, Bonney Kooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think every one missed the point due to my not being
> a bit more precise, and using a very strong wor
At 11:23 AM 3/18/02, Keith Moore wrote:
>I'm an individual with a modest income who generally pays his own way
>to attend IETF meetings. I agree that the costs are too high. However,
>I'd be opposed to a scheme that charged corporations more, because then
>they'd expect their word to carry more
Paul Robinson wrote:
>
> On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance
> > since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are
> > just as sensitive to meeting costs as sm
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 11:44:50AM +, Paul Robinson wrote:
>
> 2. Individual participation will increase, and therefore the quality of the
> protocols, rafts and RFCs will increase. Would the IETF rather be pushing
> through some standard that one manufacturer really wants for their new
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Keith" == Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Keith> And as much as the meeting costs annoy me, I haven't thought of a better
Keith> way to fund IETF. But I'd be curious to know whether holding meetings
Keith> in other venues (say uni
--- Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Bonney -
>
> 1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150
> penalty for forcing us to
> staff the registration desk with people authorized
> to handle credit card
> transactions and so forth; I don't have numbers on
> whether the pe
Paul Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... Have you noticed that nobody from any company has
> piped up in this thread to say "oooh, no, that would be a bad
> idea!".
I wouldn't have used just those words, perhaps, but just so there is
no misunderstanding:
Oooh, no, that would be a bad ide
> > That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance
> > since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are
> > just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole
> > idea of tiered prices is based on a massi
--- Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A level playing field is one where everyone pays the
> same amount of
> money for the value of services received. Also,
> I'll note that given
> that individuals who don't attend the meetings, but
> who still
> participate electronically, are basica
Paul Robinson wrote:
[..]
> For people to come back with arguments like 'Do you know how much
> the coffee costs?' raised the question 'Do you think the coffee is critical
> to have at those meetings?'.
At the IETF meetings you've participated in, are you saying the morning
and afternoon
Paul Robinson wrote:
[..]
> please, ask yourself whether the cookies are really needed. :-)
Enabling cookies improves information exchange between participants.
cheers,
gja
I'm intrigued that the reggo figures say attendance is shrinking. Amazed
but also delighted in a way, because there is no question smaller is
more functional. Obviously sad for those who can't attend, I'm not
saying this is unequivocally wonderful or anything.
The thing is, it doesn't *feel* sm
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 12:25 -0800 Bonney Kooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Bonney -
>>
>> 1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150
>> penalty for forcing us to
>> staff the registration desk with people authorized
>>
g'day,
Scott Lawrence wrote:
...
> > In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due to
> > the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word 'ludicrous' is
> > overused on this list, but I think I've found a situation it applies to -
> > please, ask yourself
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian E Carpenter writes:
>> I can
>> assure you that for large multi-nationals the difference between paying $500
>> for a delegate and $5000 is a drop in the proverbial ocean, especially when
>> it comes to standards tracking.
>
>I can assure you that you are as
This is a very old problem in many situations.
I remember well dealing with it in the LA ACM back in the 1960's...
People were objecting to paying $5.00 for dinner;-)...
One answer is to set up some kind of "Hardship Case" program to which
hardship cases may submit an application for a special
--On 18. mars 2002 13:56 -0600 Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As another independant consultant, I am actually far more price
> sensitive on the hotel and food costs than I am on anything. (And the
> ritzier the hotel, the higher the cost of the food, and the availability
>
> There is merit is actively sponsoring student participation. Perhaps we
> should be thinking of awards for best contributions, honoraria for
> travel, expenses, etc.
How can I participate in an IETF meeting? I'm a student, so money is
short. ;) Is it possible to "be there" electronically?
--
Robinson; Bonney Kooper; Marshall Rose; Joe Touch;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
> There is merit is actively sponsoring student participation. Perhaps
we
> should be thinking of awards for best contributions, honoraria for
> travel, expenses, etc.
Bonney "Robin Hood" Kooper wrote:
[..]
> But if you take the
> system view and consider the big picture, and try to
> see who is benefitting most in increased revenues as a
> result of pushing their proprietary standards as IETF
> standards, [..]
If you are not seeing any personal or bus
At 11:44 AM 3/18/02 +, Paul Robinson wrote:
>However, I remember occasions when reading a
>draft and thinking to myself 'this is a *really* bad idea to implement' and
>realising that the only way I was going to get heard was to get to the next
>meetings. ...
I must challenge this assertion --
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:44:57 +0100, Thor Harald Johansen said:
> How can I participate in an IETF meeting? I'm a student, so money is
> short. ;) Is it possible to "be there" electronically?
I've never been spotted at an IETF meeting. In fact, I think I've only
ever been spotted in person by abo
>>Well, you do have about 200Mbits/sec connected to the Hilton at the moment
>>which should support a substantial number of mostly audio content feeds,
>>but that's not likely to be available every meeting depending on sponsor.
>>Besides, I believe you just need to send out a few streams to distri
At the risk of prolonging this thread:
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 21:43, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> One answer is to set up some kind of "Hardship Case" program to which
> hardship cases may submit an application for a special discounted
> registration fee, citing their hardship situation.
>
> I shou
On Mar 18, grenville armitage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the IETF meetings you've participated in, are you saying the morning
> and afternoon stimulants failed to help you stay awake during your various
> WGs, BOFs, and hallway discussions?
Stimulants? Who needs stimulants when you've got u
>
> To believe this, you must believe that large vendors
> are unable to ship a
> product until it has some sort of IETF rubber stamp.
Stephen,
It does increase the acceptance of a solution
specially when customers are concerned about
inter-operatability issues. It is more so in carrier
networ
Thus spake "Bonney Kooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If the cost of running A PARTICULAR IETF meeting is
> concerned then it is true (this is what one would call
> the element view of the problem). But if you take the
> system view and consider the big picture, and try to
> see who is benefitting most
>And many hotels *don't* include a free breakfast,
In fact, out of all the business trips I've ever made, I can remember only
one hotel (in London) that included breakfast (not counting "continental
breakfast", which is generally inedible). Getting breakfast in a hotel
restaurant usually take
>If there is a need to sponsor
>individual sessions so be it as long as that
[...]
>doesn't affect
>independance of technical discussions.
Howls Of Derisive Laughter, Bruce.
The one who pays the piper calls the tune. It might start out subtly, but
it would eventually degenerate into a pay-for-
On Mar 18, Scott Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you make some good points regarding the ability of independent
> developers to find funding. So good that I'm going to make a point to
> watch for cases in which it might be in my companies interest to
> sponsor such people, and su
> I'm not sure what they do now, but I
> know that I've seen dicussions on freebsd lists and others where people are
> discussing how to implement certain features into some somewhere, where the
> conclusion is whoever wrote the RFC should be shot.
> The main problem right now though may be one o
> Being practical, you only *need* to attend a meeting if there is an
> intractable problem in front of a WG you're actively participating in,
> and solving that problem requires a face-to-face session.
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars -
> essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:43:06 CST, Matt Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
>
> Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
I'm willing to p
> > > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> > > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
> >
> > Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
>
> I'm willing to place bets that a *very* large chunk of things
> accomplished in
> > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
>
> Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
you cleverly left off the rest of my statement where I said
the ideas are reviewed by WGs.
> You've said that you don't go to meetings, so I won't fault your
> naivete, but the bulk of the hallway and bar work consists of
> squashing, not originating, WG items.
since more bad/naive ideas are generated than good ones, this seems
entirely appropriate.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> I think this is an artifact of the use of mailing lists for WG traffic:
> it's just not practical to follow all the mailing lists. (I sure
> don't.) A possible solution would be to feed all of the WG lists into a
> read-only IMAP (and NNTP) server
Ah, the WG items have low survivability. And what does THAT tell you?
Matt Crawford wrote:
>
> > > > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> > > > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
> > >
> > > Yes, I see. So much for the myth o
*>
*> But in the scenarios you allude to, pretty much *all* of the work to
*> address those problems should have been handled on the WG mailing
*> list. Also, standards do not get approved at IETF meetings (referring
*> to your "rubber stamped by Cisco" comments), so there's no need to
64 matches
Mail list logo
