Subject: RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:17:31 -0800

At 10:22 AM 3/17/03, you wrote:
>I'm having quite a hard time seeing what the problem is here, but maybe I'm
>missing something... Based on Harald's analysis the  projected annual
>shortfall is in the region of $350,000 per annum. Assuming ~5,000 attendees
>per annum, that equates to ~$70 per year per attendee.

The trouble with this analysis is that the 5000 attendees each year are not 
all different people.  Many, if not most, people attend more than one IETF 
meeting per year.

A more accurate analysis would be: A shortfall of $350,000 per annum means 
~$120,000 per IETF meeting.  So, if 1200 people attend each IETF meeting, 
then that means $120 extra per person.  (Or, if 2400 people attend each 
IETF meeting, then that means $60 extra per person.)

(Personally, I think that even the current $425 fee feels excessive, 
especially in the current economic climate.)

         Ross.

---

From: Bill Strahm <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:25:45 -0500

I tend to disagree with you Ross,

First it is not excessive by definition because we are not covering our costs.  Second I don't think it is excessive because I know of MANY weeklong conferences that want in the order of 1000-1700 registration fees...

I can see how this is VERY different between someone whos company pays (who cares it isn't my money) and someone on a grant, sending themselves (every penny counts, cause money I don't spend going to an IETF meeting goes into my pocket that lets me spend it on my little girl... or pick your favorite way of spending money)

The other thing that will be interesting is how do the IETF meeting expenses scale with participation... Do we spend 300,000K regardless of how many show up, or as the number of attendies goes up we spend more money and if so how much more

Bill

---

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:50:39 -0800

>First [the registration fee] is not excessive by definition because we are 
>not covering our costs.

Not necessarily.  It could be that our current costs are even more 
excessive :-)

>   Second I don't think it is excessive because I know of MANY weeklong 
> conferences that want in the order of 1000-1700 registration fees...

I never attend such conferences.

         Ross.

---

From: Peter Deutsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:58:42 -0800

g'day,

Bill Strahm wrote:
> First it is not excessive by definition because we are not covering our costs.  

Actually, from Harald's numbers the meeting fee more than covers the
direct costs of the meetings. What they don't cover is the total cost of
operating the secretariat and the rest of the IETF's activities.

One question that seems appropriate to ask is whether it is "fair" (for
some value of fair) to tax attendees in this way to cover overall costs,
or whether there is some more equitable funding mechanism that would
help spread this cost around a bit more. After all, the current system
is optimised for non-attendees. They get the full benefit of
participation, without carrying any of the associated costs...

> conferences that want in the order of 1000-1700 registration fees...

You're comparing apples and hand grenades. Professionally run
conferences operated by for-profit entities (to pick one example) have
entirely different cost structures. Sure, they're more expensive, but
the IETF doesn't offer professional training sessions, professionally
printed literature, trade shows, etc. All these have associated costs
and put further demands upon the infrastructure.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if you think Networld+Interop is somehow a
"better deal" than the IETF. What matters is whether the IETF can cover
its costs by charging another $100 per meeting without provoking a
measurable decline in attendance. If that happens, would you then
increase the cost further? Taken to extreme, you only need one person
willing to pay $2.5 million per year and the problem's solved but
somehow I'm not sure this is going to solve the problem in practice...

			- peterd

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Deutsch                       [email-masked]
                      Gydig Software

          "No, Harry - even in the wizarding world,
            hearing voices is not a good sign..."

                            - Hermione Granger

---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:09:59 -0800 (PST)

--- Bill Strahm <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The other thing that will be interesting is how do the IETF
> meeting expenses scale with participation... Do we spend
> 300,000K regardless of how many show up, or as the number of
> attendies goes up we spend more money and if so how much more

This is a concern for me - if there's a high fixed cost, and
we've become dependent on the people sitting in the meetings as
observers (hopefully, not just reading e-mail and playing
solitaire) to cover that cost, that's bad, and it's worse if
we've become dependent on them and then their companies stop
sending them to IETF because of economic conditions.

Any thoughts on whether this is actually the case or not?

Spencer

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com