Hi Brian,
At 06:41 08-11-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think that calling it a deficit is slightly misleading, since we are
a non-profit organisation. One of the reasons that CNRI gave up control
of the IETF Secretariat was because the IETF needed more income than
can be generated by reasonable meeting fees, to operate the various
services that are not directly related to the meetings. If we had to
cover those expenses out of meeting fees, the latter would have to be
more than doubled. Would you like that?
The IETF is not registered as a non-profit organization. I'll skip
the discussion about non-profit as it might be a distraction.
I'll +0 on the question as I am not paying that fee. Yesterday, John
Levine asked about meeting fees and the surplus. Someone pointed out
that it is not a surplus; it's a deficit. My comment was about the
acceptable (please do not ask me to define acceptable :-))
fee. Where's the balance between the fee being charged and
revenue? If one has more revenue, one will always find some strong
argument to do the community a favor by not increasing the meeting fee.
Personally I am very happy that ISOC sees supporting the IETF and the
RFC Editor as part of its mission, and even more happy that it has the
money to do so. I am also very happy that ICANN takes a similar
attitude to the IETF-IANA function.
I doubt that ICANN is doing the IETF a favor by not charging for the
IETF-IANA function. According to the IANA report IANA did not meet
the SLA target in April and June. I don't have a problem with that
as the IANA person said that she will do X on Y date and that is what happened.
Regards,
-sm
P.S. Thanks to the person who sent me the correct link for the IANA report