> On 11 Jun 2020, at 01:50, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hiya, > > On 11/06/2020 01:20, Colin Perkins wrote: >> I tend to view the fee as a reduced rate on the in-person IETF >> meeting fee, since the meeting has to happen in a different format >> due to the pandemic. > > That is reasonable. It is equally reasonable to regard this > as an increase from zero to non-zero. That is why we need > a community debate, before, and not afterwards. > >> As an exceptional case, that seems reasonable to me. If it becomes >> the new normal, then clearly a broader community discussion will be >> needed around the IETF funding model. > > I don't think anyone has said that we need this revenue > now or else are in trouble. Thought has also clearly been > directed to preventing "unauthorised" access to IETF > meetings and materials. To me, those strongly imply > that this is not really perceived as a once-off, but that > relevant people do consider that we will continue charging > fees for remote registration. Again, that is not an > unreasonable proposition, but imposing it on the community > without debate is unreasonable. I can see both points of view, but it would help to understand the rationale for the fee if there were some data published - and maybe I missed it - on the administrative cost of running a wholly online IETF meeting. And whether that fee is covering purely those, or a share of the year on year administrative costs for the IETF. I have a recollection, but may be wrong, of seeing somewhere it being said that the annual running costs of the IETf were pretty much met by the ISOC financial support, and that meetings ran roughly at break-even. Is that the case? Tim
