On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, Ray Pelletier wrote:
Dave,
On Oct 1, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/1/2014 7:43 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
>> Early Bird Fee $650 to $700, or 8%
> ...
>> The cause for the increase is a trend in rising costs.
It is ok as it is only 50. However, it should be considered as contribution fees also. So we should not say registration fees only.
>
>
> Merely as a matter of normal due diligence, I suggest having the
> proposal include a comparison against industry-wide meeting cost trends,
> so that the IETF increase can be considered in terms of participant fees
> at similar types of meetings for other groups.
I don't compare others fees with IETF fees because their businesses and policies are different.
>
> In other words, does the increase for IETF attendees match the kinds of
> increases being seen at other meetings?
I think the fees are not attendees fees but contribution fees that includes attendance, participation, services, etc.
This would certainly be an interesting exercise, but not particularly relevant.
Registration revenue is but one part of the income structure that includes
sponsorships, hotel commissions, and Internet Society contributions to fund
meetings, RFC Services, the Secretariat, IASA, tools maintenance and more.
Total expenses over the last 8 years have increased 32%, registration fees 8%.
Sponsorships and ISOC are not bottomless wells from which we can draw
cash at will.
There should be a cost for presentation fees. Many participants want to present and the slots are used without payment that is not fair. I am paying same amount but some have taken more WG time in presenting. If one wants to talk or ask that must be free but presenting should not be free especially if it is marketing for the authors or their companies activities.
Other organizations are not structured as we are. It would not be an
apples to apples comparison.
Agree. But many companies are participating in IETF without they paying any fees. We need to charge some companies some money, they use the IETF to market themselves, through RFCs so we should charge them money per RFC, if they don't pay we should remove their name from the first page of the RFC, and only leave their name in last page as author affiliation.
Just an additional note that the IAOC and ISOC are reviewing ways to
achieve IETF sustainability, which I hope will lead to a diversification of
income streams so that the IETF is not totally dependent on sponsors, ISOC
and meeting attendees.
Many companies that participate in IETF but pay no money should be paying in future.
Regards
AB
Best
Ray
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>