[Ietf-lac] [lacnog] ietf meeting fees

Carlos M. Martinez carlosm3011 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 13 18:01:22 -03 2019

Hola Jordi,

Yo no discuto que sea deseable que el costo de la inscripción baje. De 
hecho, a mi presupuesto le vendría bárbaro.

Lo que digo es que históricamente las registration fees han sido uno de 
los elementos que financian al IETF y que el PIR lo que hace es cubrir 
el faltante.

El mismo IETF ha sido reacio a recibir más ayuda del PIR/ISOC y de 
hecho, ahora de la mano del LLC creado en el marco de las IASA 2.0 van a 
buscar otros sponsors.

Quizás en este último punto nosotros como comunidad podemos llegar a 
colaborar, tratando de buscar que organizaciones de nuestra región o al 
menos de nuestros ámbitos de influencia puede ser sponsor del IETF.

Lo que si me parece es que solo quejarnos de algo no ayuda a que ese 
algo se solucione, tenemos que ser más activos en la búsqueda de esas 



On 13 Jun 2019, at 17:55, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via LACNOG wrote:

> Hola Carlos,
> Si y no …
> ISOC se hizo cargo del PIR (.org), con el objetivo principal de 
> garantizar el soporte de IETF.
> Y el .org, genera mucho mas dinero del que IETF necesita.
> Creo que sería deseable que se baje mucho la cuota de participación, 
> quizas unos 100 USD, porque los que nos lo pagamos de nuestro 
> bolsillo, nos facilitaría mucho las cosas.
> Cuesta tanto la cuota de registro (800 USD mas o menos), como el 
> vuelo, según donde sea. A veces el vuelo a mi me sale mucho mas 
> barato incluso. Me parece una exageración.
> No lo pondría gratuito para evitar que alguien vaya “para pegarse 
> un viaje y curiosear”, aunque dudo que eso ocurriera mucho, excepto 
> participantes locales, y si son pocos, no pasa nada.
> Quizas un sistema que permita que los empleados de empresas que 
> facturen mas de “x” millones de dolares (que son las que mas 
> beneficio tienen de hecho, gracias a la contribución de todos al 
> IETF), paguen incluso mas de 1.000 USD, y en cambio las instituciones 
> sin ánimo de lucro, gobiernos o las empresas que facturen menos de 
> esa cantidad “x”, paguen esos 100 USD.
> De hecho, me voy a plantear este sistema o algo parecido y se lo voy a 
> plantear al Board del IETF LLC.
> Saludos,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> El 13/6/19 21:29, "LACNOG en nombre de Carlos Marcelo Martinez 
> Cagnazzo" <lacnog-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de 
> carlosm3011 at gmail.com> escribió:
> Y cuál sería tu propuesta Fernando? Entiendo la preocupación pero 
> también entiendo de qué el IETF se tiene que financiar de alguna 
> forma.
> No digo que no puedan existir otros mecanismos, pero si creo que hay 
> que justamente buscarlos y proponerlos.
> S2
> Carlos
> via Newton Mail
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:10pm, Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com> 
> wrote:
> Yo plantie esta inquietud en latinoamerica, junto con otras tantas.
> Nadie me dio ni pelota.
> EN fin...
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: ietf meeting fees
> Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 13:45:00 -0400
> From: John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>
> To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns at comcast.net>, ietf at ietf.org
> --On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 21:29 -0400 Michael StJohns
> <mstjohns at comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/28/2019 6:49 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> On 5/28/19 4:35 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> ...
>> IMO - it's not inertia as much as reality.  In the current
>> "we don't have members" and "we don't charge for standards"
>> model, we have three funding sources: meeting fees, sponsor
>> contributions (both meeting and sustaining), and checks from
>> the parents ... I mean ISOC contributions.    We could
>> become more like other standards organizations by charging for
>> either or both of membership (student, researcher, personal,
>> corporate etc) and copies of the standards, but I grok that
>> either of those changes could change the fundamentals of the
>> IETF in a way that could make us *less* viable or
>> relevant.
>> ...
> Mike,
> I mostly agree, but have a different take on this, involving two
> other pieces of the same reality.  As participation costs [1]
> rise, it becomes harder for people without enterprise (profit or
> non-profit) support to attend f2f meetings.  For those of us
> with healthy consulting practices or significant
> non-occupational income, retirement income, or other reserves,
> attendance becomes a matter of personal or business priorities.
> For people operating as individuals and closer to the edge, the
> choice may be one of feasibility.   As a personal example, I've
> got some health issues that drive up minimum costs, but there
> have been years when I was attending substantially all meetings
> f2f in which the annual IETF bill came to USD 30K- 40K.  Even if
> one can get by at half or a third of that by cutting various
> costs, we still are not talking about chump change.
> It would be good to have actual numbers, although I'm not
> confident that many of us would want to disclose the details of
> our support situations to the community (or even the
> Secretariat), but my strong suspicion is the percentage of
> people actually participating as individuals -- on our own
> wallets with no enterprise/organization support -- is dropping
> relative to those who can depend on organizational money for
> travel support, registration fees, and maybe even a salary while
> at IETF or doing IETF work.   To the extent that is the case, it
> turns the model of participation by individuals into a
> convenient myth.
> Of course, organizations differ hugely about what, if anything,
> people they support to participate in the IETF are expected to
> do in return.  We've seen the full spectrum from "go there, do
> your thing, and don't pay any attention to any relationships to
> your day job" to clear corporate policies about positions
> employees are expected to take or avoid in the IETF, rewards for
> particular IETF-related actions or accomplishments, and so on.
> However, I suggest that even the potential for a company to hold
> people accountable for what they do in the IETF makes those
> people different from our traditional story (myth ?) about
> individual participation.
> That myth is, IMO, dangerous for at least three reasons.  One is
> that reasoning from the assumption that changing a model that
> doesn't exist in practice would fundamentally change the IETF
> may get in the way or clear thinking about alternatives,
> including financial alternatives.  Second, noting that
> participating as an IESG, IAB, etc., member is even more
> expensive than participating as an ordinary contributor, if our
> decision bodies come to be dominated by people with strong
> organizational support, sensitivity to cost and related issues
> by those who actually make the decisions may be reduced.
> Finally, many of our policies and procedures are designed around
> the assumption of individual participation and the related
> assumption of no coordinated organizational influence.  Should
> the IETF, as a standards developer ever get itself embroiled in
> claims that particular standards decisions were made because of
> undue organizational influences and that those decisions
> distorted the market for certain products, our failure to have
> policies and procedures in place to control that risk -- and our
> presumed claim that we don't need them because everyone
> participates as an individual would be more likely to fail a
> laugh test the more unbalanced the participant profile gets.
>> ...
>> So in the current model we can a) charge higher meeting fees,
>> b) get more sponsorship, and c) ask ISOC for a bigger check.
>> None of these wells are bottomless.  We could reduce
>> expenditures - but what would you cut?  Meeting related
>> munchies and internet? Remote access bandwidth?  Staff costs?
>> Tools support? Standards production?
>> ...
> Well, I don't know how much it would help and we have built
> systems that would cause it to take a long time for any changes
> to show significant effects (maybe another symptom of the
> "individual participation" myth), but we could also think about
> some ways to cut costs and how much they would save.   As
> examples,
> (i) Raise the threshold for creating a new WG, keeping a WG
> going, and/or giving WGs meeting time slots, or restrict the
> number of WGs to the point that we could reduce the number of
> days the IETF meets and/or the number of meeting rooms needed in
> parallel.  Reducing the number of days meetings last would
> reduce the number of hotel nights people had to pay for and
> perhaps even the number of hotel nights for staff the IETF,
> ISOC, etc., needed to pay for.  Reducing the number of parallel
> meeting rooms required might broaden the range of facilities we
> could consider and thereby permit lower-cost meeting site
> choices.
> (ii) Consider whether, with increasing use of interim meetings,
> we could reduce the number of all-IETF meetings from three to
> two.  This would presumably reduce annual travel, hotel, and
> other costs for both participants and staff and might help
> broaden participation by allowing at least some participants to
> spend a larger fraction of the year at their day jobs.
> (iii) Push back aggressively on small group meetings in parallel
> with IETF.  IIR, we used to require between three and four small
> meeting rooms: IAB and IESG (sometimes sharing one dedicated
> space), a work area for the Secretariat, and maybe something
> else like the Nomcom.  Anything else was required to take it
> elsewhere or meet in ordinary hotel rooms (or rooms of members
> of the leadership who were given complementary upgrades to
> suites under hotel contracts); we even aggressively discouraged
> other groups or company gatherings in the meeting hotel.  I
> gather the number of such spaces that are "required" has
> increased very significantly.  Given the complexities of hotel
> contracts I am not sure that cutting the number back down would
> lower costs for a given facility, but such a decrease would
> increase the number of facilities that could be considered,
> leaving us less at the mercy of facilities large enough to
> accommodate our increasing needs and more able to negotiate more
> attractive facility contracts.
> I note that each of the above has been proposed in the past, at
> least the first to the point of I-Ds proposing different
> variations.  What they have in common is that the IESG (and/or
> IASA) have been unwilling to take them up.  There are others
> that might be worth considering although I'd predict they would
> be even less likely to go anywhere:
> (iv) Push back on IAB, IESG, or other "retreats" that require
> additional travel, sometimes four weeks a year away from home
> rather than three, and staff support and travel.   These
> increase costs and decrease the number and diversity of people
> who can volunteer to serve in leadership positions.  Sometimes
> they are worth it, but the community's uncritical acceptance of
> them as regular events may imply that we are not paying enough
> attention to cost control (or that those will large travel and
> expense accounts don't notice the costs or don't care).
> (v) And, yes, we could attack the cookie budget by, e.g.,
> creating an extra charge for snack breaks.   Given the nature of
> hotel contracts, it is not clear how much that would save, but
> making it negotiable would increase our ability to control costs
> and promote competition among candidate facilities.
> Those are just examples.  If we were serious about cost
> reductions, we could probably come up with others.  I suggest
> that "we" are no serious and that, in some respects, the
> increase in remote participation has reduced the incentives to
> control costs because someone who can't afford to travel to all
> f2f meetings just stops doing so.   However, that seems to me to
> be reducing the diversity of the IETF's leadership, making the
> idea of participation as individuals more or a fiction, and
> turning the IETF more into a body where participation and
> leadership is by large and well-funded organizations even though
> we keep trying to hide and deny that.
>>>> If you are arguing for actions that reduce or tend to reduce
>>>> or have  the potential to limit the intake of funds from
>>>> that model, I suggest  you also come up with a more than
>>>> handwaving proposal for how to  replace those funds or
>>>> explain which functions supported by the IETF  we're going
>>>> to eliminate to cover such shortfall.
>>> Perhaps we should also require more than handwaving reasons
>>> for  staying the same.  :-)
>> See above - it's really just a question of who we want to be
>> and what we're willing to pay to become that.  If you can
>> tell me who we want to be, I can help you with figuring out
>> what it's going to cost in time, reputation, angst, etc.
>> ...
> To turn this around a bit, maybe we should accept that who we
> claim to be is getting less true even if has yet to disappear
> entirely.  If we want to be a body that matches our claims, we
> need to figure out what we are willing to pay (in cost
> reductions, changes in workload, and adjustments to leadership
> and overhead structures) to get that back and retain it.   I am
> not holding my breath.
> best,
>    john
> [1] That is costs as seen by those individual participants,
> i.e., not just the registration fee but the sum of that, plus
> travel expenses (air, hotel, meals, visa application fees and
> associated travel when necessary, etc.), maybe plus lost income
> or other opportunity costs when our individual sources of income
> or other support make that relevant.
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
> _______________________________________________ LACNOG mailing list 
> LACNOG at lacnic.net https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog 
> Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive 
> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty 
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of 
> this information, even if partially, including attached files, is 
> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you 
> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be 
> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original 
> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/ietf-lac/attachments/20190613/e60f7722/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ietf-lac mailing list