Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Thu, 11 June 2020 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B713A0061 for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7_62DHCzQHde for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 480BA3A005B for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49jYMF6WPpz6G9BB; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1591902585; bh=OZ9zOc4ET+wvYd7NJPSQL9JHRPvDx7qze/b+/YTxs6c=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Z0YgRsM/zbgGwxw4VJpriIYMRUcP8j9EpimhFBtmuHG34MMkDk7dX3BQ5U1Wsx2ql rQ6jmS7EkYog7R3vfu2TB1SITJaptd3a/qUQSw38gKea6PIhpoKNe5hikqXHM3wT4M AG0OnIm0TqYaSYYwCvArPiYIGnwosmIRiajaNyTk=
X-Quarantine-ID: <xDp1HMH1o9qJ>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49jYMF2vwKz6GHfW; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
To: Ole Jacobsen <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <> <> <5FCC8656386268B41681E1DE@PSB> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:09:44 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:09:49 -0000

Actually, my guess is that the notion of annual fees per person would be 
a complication for many organizations.  For example, while there are a 
core set of Ericsson participants who come to every meeting, there are 
also folks who come to about one in three. Sure, they do not get to 
offer to be on nomcom.  But they do participate when they are present. 
(And they do pay registration when they attend.)  Even many of the 
regular participants attend only two out of three.  So it would get very 


On 6/11/2020 2:58 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> Hi Barbara,
> I was going to suggest something very similar, recognizing that we have more or
> less 2 classes of attendees; those who “always” attend in person and those who
> never do so for whatever reasons. Since it is reasonable to assume that the “always”
> crowd already had Madrid in their budget (private or corporate), it would seem
> to follow that Virtual Madrid is indeed going to represent significant savings over
> a normal meeting.
> If we were to add a box with something like:
> [x] I’d like to contribute an additional amount to support remote participants (etc)
> … which lets you add an to the “shopping cart” during registration.
> This would indeed be a very nice experiment!
> Ole
>> On 11 Jun 2020, at 11:42, STARK, BARBARA H <> wrote:
>>> If the fee waiver programme were uncapped then would you still regard that as a bandaid?
>>> Jay
>> I'm going to reply at this point in the thread with some thoughts I haven't seen expressed yet.
>> Much of the commentary against registration fees has come from or on behalf of people who struggle to pay the fees.
>> Much of the commentary for registration fees has come from people who do not struggle to pay the fees.
>> As someone who doesn't struggle to pay the fee (because my employer finds it a significant savings over what would have been paid), but who recognizes that others do struggle, what I would have preferred would be:
>> Put a statement on the registration page:
>> IETF needs to raise $515,145 to pay for costs that would normally have been covered by in-person registration fees. See for more details. We request that those who are able to pay the fees do so. Any who are not able, please simply check the "waiver request" box. You will then be able to register for free. If your company would like to help sponsor our experiment with unlimited waivers (to enable IETF to continue allowing all to contribute, regardless of situation) , please contact us at <email>.
>> And then have unlimited and automatic waiver.
>> IETF likes to experiment. So we should experiment with a trust model. Trust that only those who need the waiver will request it, and see what happens.
>> Barbara
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor and Publisher
> The Internet Protocol Journal
> Office: +1 415-550-9433
> Cell:   +1 415-370-4628
> Web:
> E-mail:
> E-mail:
> Skype: organdemo