Exactly. As I mention in my previous email, this is not really about "this" meeting, it is about next meetings (in person and online, with and without Covid19), it is about how to cover *all* our expenses.
It is unfair that people that contributes more, pay traveling expenses and attendance fees, and may have similar problems to cover all that cost as people that is participating remotely, which only will need to pay for a registration fee.
How we compensate all the people that have attended meetings for tens of years? In my own case my first meeting was summer 2001, and I never missed one, so I've contributed with about 34.000 USD (just in attendance fees!). For an individual or an SME, this is not the same as for a participant that works for a medium or big size organization, that is covering all the expenses for him/her.
So, this is a discussion about IETF budged in general. It is about what the PIR/.org was created for (cover IETF costs), and if this is sufficient to fund *all the IETF* costs, and reduce the meeting fees for *all* to a very minimum, for both, in-person and online meetings/participants, may be considering what "backup" participants from big organizations have (or as an alternative, providing 1-2 free registration or very low cost fees for each organization and then increase the cost for others, etc.). There are many ways to do that and be fair with people that is contributing vs only "attending".
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 1/6/20 17:40, "ietf en nombre de Bob Hinden" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxxx en nombre de bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> escribió:
Jason,
I think the issue here is that we are now charging for something we didn’t before. That is, we allowed remote participation at IETF meetings without a fee unto and including IETF 107. As Brian points out, this change in policy was done with out any discussion.
I also note that everything we do in the IETF has a cost to it. Every email, internet draft, submission to the IESG, working group charter, IETF tool, etc., etc. We can see all these costs in the IETF LLC budget. None of it is free.
The question is which of these do we charge for? According the budget at:
https://ietf.org/blog/ietf-administration-llc-2020-budget/
the non-meeting operating expenses are about $5.1 million per year. Even the meeting revenue (including registration fees) doesn’t cover all of the meeting expenses. That is, $3.8M revenue vs. $4.1M costs.
How do we decide what to charge for? What is the policy?
Also, what does the budget look like without face to face meetings?
Bob
> On Jun 1, 2020, at 8:07 AM, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It's interesting that the issue has been framed as a new fee will be charged to participate in an IETF meeting. But there's been a fee to attend an IETF meeting for as long as I've participated in the IETF. I might suggest that another way of considering this is that the typical meeting fee is being discounted for the virtual meeting.
>
> Jason
> (not speaking for the IETF LLC - personal view)
>
> On 6/1/20, 8:39 AM, "ietf on behalf of Suresh Krishnan" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of suresh.krishnan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> +1. I think this is a reasonable decision and allows people to participate without financial barriers, while allowing the ongoing activities funded by IETF meeting fees to proceed without interruption.
>
> Regards
> Suresh
>
>> On May 31, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Eric in his description. From where I sit, this seems a reasonable decision by the leadership.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 5/31/2020 5:13 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 1:56 PM S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sm%2Bietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>> Dear Internet Engineering Steering Group,
>>> [Reply-To override]
>>> At 06:12 PM 27-05-2020, IETF Executive Director wrote:
>>>> This meeting will have a substantial agenda but as the cost of an
>>>> online meeting is lower, the registration fees have been set at
>>>> approximately one-third of those for an in-person meeting. A
>>>> detailed explanation of why we charge a fee for meetings and how the
>>>> fee reduction was set for IETF 108 is provided in a separate blog
>>> post [3].
>>> In 2013, the IETF Chair affirmed that the Internet Engineering Task
>>> Force embraced the modern paradigm for standards. One of the points
>>> in the document is the standards process being open to all interested
>>> and informed parties. If I recall correctly, I raised a point a few
>>> months before 2013 about the IETF allowing free access to its
>>> meetings through the Internet. I could not help noticing that there
>>> is now a required fee to access the next IETF meeting. Was that
>>> approved by the IESG?
>>> I took a look at the meeting policy for the IETF. I never understood
>>> why that policy is described as an ambition. Anyway, as that policy
>>> does not specify anything about changing the existing practice for
>>> fees, it is unlikely that the decision to charge for online meetings
>>> can be challenged.
>>> I would like to thank the IETF LLC Directors for acknowledging that
>>> the fee presents a barrier to participation and their charitable
>>> offer. I'll leave the charitable offer to those who are in need.
>>> It took a decade for the IETF to take this pay-to-play decision. Was
>>> there any discussion about it?
>>> I don't think the characterization of this as "pay-to-play" is accurate. You
>>> are certainly free to participate in mailing lists, github, etc.
>>> What is being charged here is a fee to participate [0] in real-time virtual
>>> meetings, just as there is one charged for attending in-person meetings.
>>> -Ekr
>>> [0] I emphasize "real-time" as I expect that the recordings will be available
>>> after the fact as usual.
>>
>
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
