Re: IETF registration fee increase from 2015

A number of companies have*already* thrown in a fair amount of money
without asking for votes.  Cisco is hosting the IETF Hawaii meeting.  I
don't recall anything saying that the company were asking for anything
in return, although I hope it's not too much to ask that the IETF
deliver high quality relevant technical standards, as the organization
has done for several decades...

Eliot


On 10/2/14, 2:59 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
> <cynic-on>
> Companies would jump at that. This is the model of ETSI. By the way, the more 
> a company pays, the more votes they get. I am sure that is the goal, right? 
> The company with the deepest pockets dictates the standards. That would be 
> awesome! Those of us who are independent consultants, university professors, 
> or from startups might even get to come for free to watch as spectators. I 
> can imagine how this will improve the development of the Internet.
> </cynic-on>
>
> NOT
>
>
> On Oct 2, 2014, at 7:09 AM, Abdussalam Baryun 
> <abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> > I think we should increase the participation  fees on companies also.  If 
> > company X is authoring 5 IETF-drafts with same individual author, I think 
> > they should pay more money than a company having two IETF-drafts with same 
> > individual author. Therefore, no extra payment on individuals that author 
> > more drafts but extra payments from their companies, otherwise their name 
> > should not be part of the first page of the draft/RFC. 
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, Ray Pelletier wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > On Oct 1, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/1/2014 7:43 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
> > > > Early Bird Fee              $650 to $700, or 8%
> > > ...
> > > > The cause for the increase is a trend in rising costs.
> > It is ok as it is only 50. However, it should be considered as contribution 
> > fees also. So we should not say registration fees only.  
> >
> > > Merely as a matter of normal due diligence, I suggest having the
> > > proposal include a comparison against industry-wide meeting cost trends,
> > > so that the IETF increase can be considered in terms of participant fees
> > > at similar types of meetings for other groups.
> > I don't compare others fees with IETF fees because their businesses and 
> > policies are different. 
> >  
> > > In other words, does the increase for IETF attendees match the kinds of
> > > increases being seen at other meetings?
> > I think the fees are not attendees fees but contribution fees that includes 
> > attendance, participation, services, etc. 
> >  
> >
> > This would certainly be an interesting exercise, but not particularly 
> > relevant.
> >
> > Registration revenue is but one part of the income structure that includes
> > sponsorships, hotel commissions, and Internet Society contributions to fund
> > meetings, RFC Services, the Secretariat, IASA, tools maintenance and more.
> >
> > Total expenses over the last 8 years have increased 32%, registration fees 
> > 8%.
> > Sponsorships and ISOC are not bottomless wells from which we can draw
> > cash at will.
> >
> > There should be a cost for presentation fees. Many participants want to 
> > present and the slots are used without payment that is not fair. I am paying 
> > same amount but some have taken more WG time in presenting.  If one wants to 
> > talk or ask that must be free but presenting should not be free especially 
> > if it is marketing for the authors or their companies activities. 
> >
> >
> > Other organizations are not structured as we are.  It would not be an
> > apples to apples comparison.
> >  
> > Agree. But many companies are participating in IETF without they paying any 
> > fees. We need to charge some companies some money, they use the IETF to 
> > market themselves, through RFCs so we should charge them money per RFC, if 
> > they don't pay we should remove their name from the first page of the RFC, 
> > and only leave their name in last page as author affiliation. 
> >
> >
> > Just an additional note that the IAOC and ISOC are reviewing ways to
> > achieve IETF sustainability, which I hope will lead to a diversification of
> > income streams so that the IETF is not totally dependent on sponsors, ISOC
> > and meeting attendees.
> >
> > Many companies that participate in IETF but pay no money should be paying in 
> > future. 
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > AB 
> >
> > Best
> > Ray
> >
> >
> >
> > > d/
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dave Crocker
> > > Brandenburg InternetWorking
> > > bbiw.net

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature