RE: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

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