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

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