In message <AC1A3EF6-1A0A-11D8-B94E-000A95CD987A@xxxxxxxxx>, Iljitsch van Beijn um writes: >On 18-nov-03, at 19:48, Keith Moore wrote: > >>> I already indicated before: 100-150 Euros more is not a big issue. > >> I strongly and emphatically disagree, and I strongly object to >> attempts to >> use of increased meeting feeds to discourage some parties from >> participating >> at IETF. Basically this kind of fee increase is completely and >> absolutely >> unacceptable. > >Especially considering the fact that based on the budget for 2003 (see >http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/budget-2003.html ) the costs per >attendee are less than 300 dollars, even at the lower than projected >attendance. > >Maybe this would be a good time to explain what the IETF needs a 9.33 >person secretariat for, and why the secretariat must be entirely funded >by meeting fees. Y'know, IETFers always have fun comparing the size of our secretariat to those from other standards organizations. The phrase "order of magnitude smaller" comes to mind. The Secretariat handles I-D processing, meeting planning, IESG telechats, software development and systems administration to support all that, and much, much more. > >As for the network: Vienna has shown that it's possible to do better. There were at least two major external items that were different this time: nasty, aggressive worms, both inside and outside -- *why* should anyone clueful enough to attend an IETF meeting not know how to run AV software, at the very least! -- and "helpful" operating systems that think that going into IBSS mode when they don't hear a base station is "user-friendly". --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb