Re: IETF registration fee increase from 2015

Howdy,


On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot(_at_)mnot(_dot_)net> 
wrote:

I have to say I’m concerned about the trend here; it’s already hard for
people who are not “standards professionals” to go to an IETF meeting.

I want developers and implementers to come to my meetings, not (just)
people who are the “regulars.” Given the short time blocks available in an
IETF meeting, as well as uncertainly around scheduling until just before
the meeting (travel scheduling-wise), it seems like we’re creating
ever-more-steep barriers to having them come to meetings.

I understand that the IETF has to stay "financial". However, I’d ask that
we consider a number of measures to help address this situation:

* Finalising the agenda (far) before it currently is, so that people can
make firm (and economic) travel plans without blocking out an entire week

I wonder if we can't do something between "finalize down to the minute"
and get blocks of time that aren't a week long.  In apps, for example, do
"web stuff" in one block and "email stuff" in another.  Solidify that early
and you will get some improvement.  It won't help for cross-area concerns
(HTTP and WEBRTC, for example), but it might help some.

* Freezing the day pass fee (and raising the “full week” fee

proportionately)

I don't follow this.  Making the fee proportional, I agree with, but
subsidizing the fee out of increased fees for those who do more (and
potentially more cross-area work) isn't right.  It might not do that now,
but freezing it would lead you there eventually.

* Allowing WGs to hold interim meetings without being required to meet at
the adjacent IETF meetings

So, this was forbidden to avoid regional cost shifting when the majority
of participants were either U.S. or northern European; it was specifically
to prevent folks from ditching a meeting in Asia and holding an interim
instead, because it punished those coming from further.  I think we still
want to prevent that sort of exclusionary behavior, can you see other ways
that do that?  E.G. making the interims in the same region?

I note that you do not list "foster remote participation methods and tools"
as a way around the lack of low-cost alternatives.  I've heard you talk
about it, but you might want to explain why a bit more here, since it is
salient to where we invest.

regards,

Ted

To anticipate the objections this will raise — yes, I understand that
things are structured to encourage cross-particiption and information
sharing between groups. However, I believe that in doing so, all we’re
really doing is discouraging participation by people who don’t have the
time or interest in focusing their careers on standards full-time.

Cheers,

P.S. I’m not subscribed to IETF@, so please CC: me on replies, *unless*
they’re vitriol-filled or off-topic.


On 2 Oct 2014, at 3:43 am, IETF Chair <chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:


In preparing the final budget for 2015 and drafts for 2016 and beyond,
we face continuing rising meeting and other costs and no corresponding
increase in meeting registration fees.  In fact, the meeting
registration fee has not changed in 4 years.

Therefore, the IAOC is proposing to raise the meeting registration fee
by $50 per meeting starting with the March meeting in Dallas as
follows:

Early Bird Fee              $650 to $700, or 8%
Late Fee                        $800 to $850
Day Passes                       $350 to $400
Full time Students        $150 - $175

More details below, but we seek community feedback before doing this.

The cause for the increase is a trend in rising costs.  IETF costs

relate to the

meetings, support services (secretariat, IT), RFC Editor, and various

other

items such as tool development. IETF is funded through the meeting fees,

as

well as significant contributions through sponsors and ISOC.

For the last 4 years, 2011 - 2014, the Registration Fee has been

unchanged

at $650, and for the period 2008 through 2010 the Registration Fee was

$635.


Over the period 2007 through 2014 the Registration Fee increased from

$600

to $650, 8.3% over the eight years.  During that time Expenses, including
meetings, RFC Editor, Secretariat, IASA, and others, increased 32%.  In

Expenses will increase 6% over the 2014 forecast.

As a percentage contribution to the budget, registration revenue has

declined

from 51% in 2007 to 41% in 2014.  Without a registration fee increase in
2015, that would drop to 36% of the budget.  Even with the fee increase

of

$50 in 2015, it becomes 39%.

Since the implementation of IASA in 2005, the IAOC has sought to provide
support services of high quality and value through a “regularization” of
contractual relationship with our vendors in all the above categories.

As you

know, we submit statements of work to the community for review and do
competitive Requests for Proposals. Our services continue to change, and

in

some cases expand, such as increasing the number of editors to handle the
roughly 340 RFCs per year, outsourcing the NOC, and remote participation
services.

The suggested registration fee increase is sufficient to re-balance the

budget

for 2015. Unfortunately, the cost of hotel facilities and other services

continues

to grow slowly. Without further actions, additional increases may be

necessary,

and we project a $20 increase for 2016. The IAOC has taken on a task to
determine whether we can reduce and/or prioritize our costs so that the

trend

can be minimized. No decisions have been taken about meeting fees beyond
2015, and they will depend on the success of the IAOC in its task.

The draft budget, registration fee history, expense history and major

expense

trends can be found here: <https://iaoc.ietf.org/2015-budget.html>.

Thanks for your consideration of this and your feedback. The next IAOC

meeting

is October 9th, and if possible, we would prefer to receive feedback by

then


Jari Arkko, IETF Chair
Chris Griffiths, IAOC Chair


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/