RE: Registration details for IETF 108

Adrian Farrel <> Mon, 01 June 2020 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06E33A15EB; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eOtkyekMbrtG; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:21:53 -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 899583A15EA; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 051MLo5C008601; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:21:50 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA5E72203B; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:21:49 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4EE42203A; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:21:49 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 051MLmCN009353 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:21:49 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Jay Daley'" <>, "'ietf'" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: Registration details for IETF 108
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:21:47 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <029e01d63863$0a9ae750$1fd0b5f0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIi94OafgxU9aBVwZLcOLw3dFWcqwFCS3JyAaNK0/ACD+GzKAGHmSASAdj5sOwBjzdKYAJWmdxFAc9RR18BWMsPHKevtv/w
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--14.306-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--14.306-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--14.306000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 9vvqFUF7IWnxIbpQ8BhdbPVY7U3NX8JgUK80YYUAl4uvcJ/Z94BlBXpQ URdMc/ivQONo1NP0+aWeu6wSVaoTLl1APj0tYoWuzNY33yIEF4bBfzdBRIYN97V5fSMRD1zqZ53 Ri6/H8Bt1UmY6Ddjmd8x7gqWX8tkUaBEX4pexeYx1mcbFxIJ15Qs3rU/MgwCjd6RFRE7vKfE4XU yA5KW+ePeD2lZIzw7eJpAwi9W5TWIVJoX+0Dni+MEU6KRYGcYd2ikNBi4UTw+damZYAv5RcNSLO Rr4Zhm8X8szSis1XG5HQnovf9LzCl4SIKshV8SXlTsGW3DmpUsX2zxRNhh61YxRWJphhsrco0YG raGLZ0DubsfnV0W4xoHSWBcJkb7+V9pTrbMzOt4sYOarN8c4H6m9/6ObPjnD6ijaxRnbocaBDME PWMMsn+Hzo/PrAcZ/jx/9WfL+VSDhiZR5uj+8if7kh4czHCCafYrr1p9yfCrO6WkMZF3I5myODb ehByLawRW56gQX5eq39oODGERqBSw76RUR9W5CndmxlPEzz1YXw5Hb3/XOHR5l9EjWXP3DJ8QGI bLHWLPMfW8j4ZANVpbiTEZvM55sJ4rqRnYfgSeTCCj1265aFxiDIOPlOJG1tpVOZrilzzJmt4KW +KMinnJG+Z7BNf8ThxHjE30dAnu/WXZS/HqJ2lOm2gN+nomsxEHRux+uk8irEHfaj14ZyWLMagP N5XeE+xScmwTXVNDnFVOBHCDAlKByyga0Z4QXCs1ZrMLvZcs=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 22:21:56 -0000

Thanks for the clarity, Jay.

Money comes into the pot and money goes out of the pot.

It seems that meeting sponsorship is ring-fenced for meeting costs, but meeting fees are applied more generally. Is that true?


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <> On Behalf Of Jay Daley
Sent: 01 June 2020 22:27
To: ietf <>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Replying to multiple different things:

1.  The decision on registration fees is mainly an LLC one so please send any feedback to me.  

2.  It looks like some people are not aware that we have published a blog post explaining how the fee was set:

3.  The choice of 100 fee waivers was based on conversations with sponsors who want to fund the fee waivers specifically.  It was not chosen on any assessment of the potential need.

4.  The decision on how to allocate fee waivers is for the IESG not the LLC and I will leave it to them to explain their thinking behind a random draw rather than "criteria-based case-by-case decision making".

5.  This decision was not trailed on May 14 because there was still a lot of work to be done on the finances - budgets, sponsorship, insurance, etc - to understand *if* we had to charge a fee and what level that should be at, and we did not want to delay an announcement until that was complete.  The current situation demands that we do a lot of work in a short time and some compromises need to be made when deciding what to say when.

6.  We did not consult on this because there is not enough time for an effective consultation.  It would probably have been worse to have asked people their views and then said sorry we don’t have enough time to change anything.  

7.  The policy about what we charge for was set a long time ago - meeting registration fees are set to cover more than just the cost of the meeting, they also contribute towards the cost of running the IETF in-between meetings.  See for one historic mention of that.  If the community wants that changed then the LLC will build a new budget accordingly, but I suggest that is discussed in the context of the overall financial structure of the IETF and how that relates to the aspirations of the IETF for participation, rather than just in the context of meeting finances.

While this pandemic feels like it has been with us for a long time, we are still working in exceptional circumstances and having to make decisions where there is limited consensus community guidance as these are circumstances that were only partially foreseen.  If the community wants to pick this up then more consensus community guidance around this would be very welcome, particularly if it is ready in plenty of time for IETF 109 in case that also needs to be switched to an online meeting.

If there are any questions I’ve missed then please let me know.


Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director