RE: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 12 June 2020 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9CD3A08B2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.688
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38xxxwGYtNsB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDBEF3A0895 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.140.204]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 05CEmeMh019051 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1591973334; x=1592059734; i=@elandsys.com; bh=pIIHEsMv0x1ORBZGFaPmVbL81uw8ayCbMZIYL1OSzK8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=cJwSD95+AjFzqijrsJj8m267SLHU8D3q0Tcf5Y3Yp4Ir+sxOo1nkP3bGyiOZl4yYu bGayCx9NGpWdzHWo/Ap6JobMzr2ZdR+dVOTXLeEQbIwQw9bMzTNOEVQ6fLDQ1G3CVN ppJxH/QKB0WhxpRHQkjh62rz5tIUbuXnh9zXdO0o=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200612073243.0b89a0c8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:48:24 -0700
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: RE: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
In-Reply-To: <050501d63fd1$8027b910$80772b30$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <159166311543.4506.736406779378278905@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFgnS4WOjmNOf_MRfms1RD0e15xYP-xcfNiyqS7p5ofYBEQPdw@mail.gmail.com> <d65a8aeffc61b6d069afa87f3c91b10496c4d5b2.camel@lsl.digital> <5FCC8656386268B41681E1DE@PSB> <B4293B17-6F83-4B9E-89BF-C0B1388F346F@cable.comcast.com> <CABmDk8=gxXiQ60hpdCNB6jK0EG_ssAQnzjgJp=c9yXNKabHKeA@mail.gmail.com> <CABmDk8mwVfWZQmBwZ9c4xaoStwv7CeRRceihTR846iq_LYPFFw@mail.gmail.com> <F6BFB099-2526-4EEB-A267-F2A1D0A7DDFB@cooperw.in> <630140C2-64AB-4048-8806-8DBFE1469157@cooperw.in> <050501d63fd1$8027b910$80772b30$@olddog.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0D7EonXw_0SihZFrodqgRL8GcYw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:49:09 -0000

Hi Adrian,
At 02:20 AM 11-06-2020, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>If it turns out that 100 waivers are enough, 
>then surely 300 would also be enough.
>
>But I am also confused as to why we call this "a 
>waiver". It looks, from the various statements, 
>that the waiver scheme is sponsored by Google 
>and Futurewei. I for one am very grateful to 
>these companies for their generosity and support 
>of making the IETF more accessible and open. 
>However, what appears to be described is a 
>bursary scheme not a waiver scheme. That is, all 
>attendance still has a cost: the question is simply who is covering that cost.

I would like to thank Google and Futurewei for 
generosity in helping to remove barriers to participation.

I read the announcement which was sent on 28 May 
once again.  The scheme is not a waiver scheme; 
it is similar to a bursary scheme where the 
allocation is based on a random selection 
mechanism.  That is incongruent with the purpose; 
i.e. the development and publication of Internet 
standards, specifications and related documents 
on a charitable, non-profit basis.

>And maybe this is the point. If this was truly a 
>waiver scheme then the cost of increasing the 
>number of users of the scheme would be zero 
>(additional people attending who would not 
>otherwise attend does not cost AFAICS). It is 
>only if the scheme is a bursary that it needs to 
>be limited to the size of the bursary 
>(presumably capped at $23k) and some way has to 
>be found to choose between a greater number of applicants.
>
>Am I right?
>There is a fee for everyone to attend
>The attendance fees for up to 100 people will be kindly met by sponsors
>There is no scope for waiving the attendance fees
>There is no scope for seeking additional sponsors
>
>Many thanks for continuing to work through these 
>details against a tight timeline.

Did you receive answers to the above questions?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy