oops. RFC2031. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ ________________________________________ From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx [l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 12 July 2013 01:08 To: hallam@xxxxxxxxx; spromano@xxxxxxxx Cc: moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: IETF registration fee? This neglects to mention that the IETF is really an activity of the Internet Society - see RFC2301 for takeover details. As such, the IETF is a business unit of ISOC, which is a non-profit (charitable organization) and which can subsidize the IETF, allowing different conference/payment models to be tried out. (I've never really understood the IETF business model. I understand ISOC's model even less.) Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ ________________________________________ From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Phillip Hallam-Baker [hallam@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 11 July 2013 15:34 To: Simon Pietro Romano Cc: Keith Moore; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: IETF registration fee? There are several interlocking issues with the day passes and cross area participation. One issue is the fact that the IETF chose a business model in which profits from the conferences fund the organization and the IETF has no ability to reconsider or change decisions of that sort. I can see that as being an existential threat to the IETF in a decade or two since the demand for (unpaid) external participation is going to grow and the technologies for supporting external participation will eventually not suck. Using paid conferences as a profit center is a risky long term prospect at best. Refusing to adapt the format of the conferences to protect the profit center worse. And in the case of the IETF the whole purpose of the organization is to develop the technologies that are undermining the paid conference model. We are sawing the board we are standing on. Cross area participation is a good thing but the way the IETF supports this is terrible. I won't be coming to Berlin because there is only one WG that I have a reason to attend in person and it is not worth making the flight for a two hour meeting, much of which is summaries. I much prefer the OASIS or W3C model for plenary meetings where my WG session will be doing one or two solid days of design work and the plenary sessions are on the Wednesday and consist of a series of presentations designed to inform people about the work going on in each area. Sitting in watching other WGs is not a good way to find out what is going on. Area meetings are more useful.