Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Colin Perkins <> Thu, 11 June 2020 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC4E3A0CE1; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tOVKjxBfts-C; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13E4B3A0CA6; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:From:Subject; bh=/JDoenLNzRZFBWHjum/6Janiy1BKITL8VJr47TgHY2Y=; b=h66btPpECtkJyb7ZOaTmnWkkvk zMw2LZ9wBgZTMWnH70kMJJp58sCxViXmrh4KKqC4wA2JOLz+qJe+kd1pRSZgyqIOZuhFaVvQXokPs nWyNIWdREYvnOSBUBR85VPA+8BUzh+fZugP0kx0eiIitH70F0U6Ft+uRNMTmPiQAcc1t3IQ/Orpiv MzkTfwozCS6NYs5UrTLLuhmeOEIl71p3VpStZio8Cz6AlKKpxpNYTucU4TMZVWbTEPgwqvM9GC96P 7vio+rU43AkXOmlspGFoHvkkVWj5ccS8UWHdq/Ixog/V9feEOgTnMpBDt4SgWSX5Xars+OXdRxlCB mQDw/Tmw==;
Received: from [] (port=33920 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <>) id 1jjAxy-0003DM-Oc; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:21:14 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
From: Colin Perkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:20:50 +0100
Cc: Alissa Cooper <>, John C Klensin <>, "" <>, ietf <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <5FCC8656386268B41681E1DE@PSB> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
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 00:21:30 -0000

> On 10 Jun 2020, at 23:10, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
> On 10/06/2020 22:09, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> For IETF 108 we didn't have a lot of time to sort this out. Our
>> thinking was that any approach aside from random selection needs
>> substantial community consultation even if it will only apply to one
>> meeting because it implies subjective judgment about whose attendance
>> ought to be subsidized. We did not have time to do that before
>> registration details needed to be shared with the community.
> I think someone pointed it out earlier, but I'm also
> puzzled how one can reach a conclusion that introducing
> a fee for remote registration didn't need community debate
> but the flavour of waiver for said fee does require such
> debate.

I tend to view the fee as a reduced rate on the in-person IETF meeting fee, since the meeting has to happen in a different format due to the pandemic. As an exceptional case, that seems reasonable to me. If it becomes the new normal, then clearly a broader community discussion will be needed around the IETF funding model. I'd guess that that discussion will take some time to conclude.

Granting fee waivers based on private application of subjective criteria, with no community guidance on what criteria to apply, seems like a much bigger process change.


> The only way I can make sense of that is if one has
> concluded that remote registration fees are happening
> for sure, regardless of what the community think, and
> that's a concern as it has all sorts of impacts that
> to me absolutely do require community debate before
> anything is done.
> Again, I think the best outcome here would be to waive
> 100% and not 100 of the remote registration fees for
> IETF108 and let the community debate this before such
> decisions are taken. If we cannot afford that, then
> please say so clearly - that would be a relevant fact.
> But if we could afford that, I really don't get why
> it's ok to barge ahead like this.
> S.
> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>

Colin Perkins