Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Saturday, 15 March, 2003 16:59 -0500 Jeffrey Altman 
<jaltman at columbia.edu> wrote:

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London
> > was even  more expensive than Yokohama.
> > With the lack of sponsoring of terminal rooms, the difference
> > is much  less, but still significant. The reason for the
> > varying prediction of  per-attendee cost for 2004-2005 is
> > that we are considering 2 non-US  meetings in 2004 - but if
> > they are definitely more expensive than US  meetings even
> > when we get sponsors outside the US and no sponsors  inside
> > the US, we may have to reevaluate.
>
> Having access to wireless networks and the Internet throughout
> the meetings are certainly a desirable feature.  However,
> they are hardly a deciding factor on whether or not I attend
> an IETF meeting.  In many ways, if there was no network we
> might actually get more done.  What percentage of the costs of
> a meeting are due to the terminal room and related expenses?

To the extent to which this question is worth looking at, I 
suggest that it would be useful to further dissect it.  For 
example, terminal or computer rentals are, in my experience, 
quite expensive.  If we get rid of them, shifting the burden of 
bringing (or renting) computers to those who want to use them, 
we not only reduce that expense, but probably reduce the amount 
of floor space we need for terminal rooms (relevant when we need 
to pay for that space).  I don't know what the combination 
costs, or how many people who are really active participants are 
dependent on the terminals/computers, as distinct from Ethernet 
or Wireless drops, but it seems to me to be a question worth 
asking.


> The real question is "to what extent is it reasonable for the
> costs of running the IETF be funded by relying on attendance
> fees?"  It has always struck me as odd that the people who
> volunteer to do the work of the IETF pay for the privilege.
> The IETF does not really function as a "standards body" in the
> traditional sense as it is not funded either by government
> grants nor by a consortium of industry.  The IETF does not
> develop mandatory standards which must be adhered to in order
> to have certified products.  Instead everything we do is
> voluntary.  Not only is the work voluntary but so is the
> output.

There may be some misconceptions or misunderstanding here, 
although the attendance fees for a body that claims one can 
fully participate without ever attending a meeting are, indeed, 
a bit strange.  But there are few mandatory standards in the 
information technology area.  Everything ISO and ANSI do is 
voluntary (both the work and adoption of the output).  And the 
(rather high) fees are paid for, by and large, by the 
organizations whose members/ employees are doing the work.  Yes, 
some few of those standards are then legislated into required 
practices, but that could happen with ours as well.  And I most 
other national standards bodies, at least those of which I'm 
aware, work more or the same way although the level of 
government involvement and subsidy is higher in many cases. 
The "you expect us to contribute our time and talent and then 
pay you for the privilege and sign over all copyright rights 
(including republication within our own organizations to you so 
you can charge us for the documents we wrote" policies are 
widely resented, but still generally practiced.

regards,
  john