<cynic-on> Companies would jump at that. This is the model of ETSI. By the way, the more a company pays, the more votes they get. I am sure that is the goal, right? The company with the deepest pockets dictates the standards. That would be awesome! Those of us who are independent consultants, university professors, or from startups might even get to come for free to watch as spectators. I can imagine how this will improve the development of the Internet. </cynic-on> NOT On Oct 2, 2014, at 7:09 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think we should increase the participation fees on companies also. If company X is authoring 5 IETF-drafts with same individual author, I think they should pay more money than a company having two IETF-drafts with same individual author. Therefore, no extra payment on individuals that author more drafts but extra payments from their companies, otherwise their name should not be part of the first page of the draft/RFC. > > 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 > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail