On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 11:22 AM John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <CABcZeBOLAw_9s-gobFYB=5THu_Q70UmDLn_ZhVXhNRHN_nu_0w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>This seems like entirely appropriate practice on short notice. I would note
>that the LLC regularly makes decisions which involve a far larger change to
>people's costs than the fees -- namely, where to site the meeting --
>without consultation, so I while I think it would be good for the LLC to
>get feedback on this topic, I don't think there's inherently an obligation
>to put it to a community wide call for consensus.
Agreed. The IETF works within financial constraints, and a large part
of the LLC's job is to balance what we want to do with the resources
we have. Unilaterally making 108 free for everyone would blow a large
hole in our budget (there are still expenses even without a physical
meeting) and we can't just decree it.
Had ISOC been allowed to dispose of the PIR without the political meddling, it would of course have been able to do exactly that, and could have been expected to.
But it wasn't and while it probably still could we can't expect that it should. Which means that because some folk decided to fund raise off the risk that the minority of non profits holding .org names might end up paying one or two dollars a year extra, the one non-profit the PIR is actually supposed to fund now continues to face a massive concentrated position in its portfolio.
