On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 07:55:31AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > Comparisons need to be made carefully. Indeed. I will observe, for instance, that the fact we don't have memberships (let alone corporate memberships) complicates our situation quite a lot. I _think_ we all still think that's a feature, but it's worth noting. > confused with it. Is the following an at least s nearly > correct summary of the bottom line: […] It's probably one useful way to understand things, anyway. I don't know that it's exactly how I'd describe things, but there's more than one way to describe most phenomena. > Viewed that way, the whole question of "register without paying" > is mostly a distraction. Yes. > individualized "hey, early registration is about to close, you > indicated you were probably coming, want to register and pay up > before the fees go up" messages if people thought those might > help. Who will pay for the creation and operation of this feature? Features are not free. Given our size and what we're doing, we're operating on a shoestring budget. But people need to understand that the competitive landscape is not in our favour. There is a lot of consolidation in the hospitality industry (if you're unaware of this, please use your favourite search engine to read about Marriot and Starwood, or AccorHotels' recent acquisitions). Our long-running deal with Hilton is expiring, and its terms were quite generous. Venue operators have minimum expected incomes from a group our size, and if they don't get that income somehow they simply won't welcome us at all (this is why trimming cookies doesn't help: if F&B goes down, meeting space charges will go up to compensate). Meanwhile, our tooling is not getting cheaper, and a lot of it is bespoke. We have neither a really large income base nor an obvious way to diversify and increase it without affecting the nature of the IETF. I am very much in favour of operating in an open way, and I welcome comments on the proposal we are making. But I also want people to appreciate that the _status quo ante_ is not going to be on the list of options. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
