Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Tim Chown <> Thu, 11 June 2020 09:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1683A177B; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 2zIjCj0G3ZKO; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A4FA3A1777; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c3so5275075wru.12; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=U/lleLyE6Tyl9RSprBeG3PwnmMrStrbZBe+QrQFRunQ=; b=uEjCMM/k2FuPQERKSYvu0DlXCQ3mvlC0I564K9D5HaWj8s0xlCnjk/IrijAfy/f2li GTg1p49Nqzscv9McbEw3J4lJkm02CsZrlJMoDiQeaNgvEn2Y5MXS73s2Sm1XbPPkvVXV 94d066gFv3Z1OhQdtkInvePNMz4xLNY3Q1K67nT8YpPd/1IZTX3I4wfNvCtEN8JzC2U5 RwOz5c7fj9h0iZqUf3N2jUR/N9AhshZBrm5MfFvBF8+h7xvrKDflD9jkW1iNxGftFhVR fCQjLF7VZQ38akBKHyr97xvF8immBI/xj1wGUll0dKsc4yY/04e5M3ynJ3ki4puHNLUD dxpQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=U/lleLyE6Tyl9RSprBeG3PwnmMrStrbZBe+QrQFRunQ=; b=RcpSe45sUKWvihcUFG8E6sVpNZelReM7d6gS6iEwLnePC2EPUiq3MMUFGea3Y1HBGA ecHJQP327wBjvQHWsA/BW17XoBCgGiEIRX2SvvMKJYNN2NOy7VprAzoaMQV/ysqMt0tw x6GNjTOyiz6QNs7/eZnyKfu/e3dQ/4uioPG9KrE+uAgFnW80wTFE4y1Ej8nSsagoy3vx 2E2Zrhf+M7rtSMbHLyaiebBRmN4N/de48vyvfmmuGy8478jFUJna4oYSroBz0thJRCxF /IeAdHc5e7Qohp82pDgxWjlEW7C1zKEF5uNAKQr+nQ92SHct1DLIzqtQyL5NmWUTvie+ TTnw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533W+i/M7FTu0qRSiSnmE7LBm0eRqZyr8aWBh3Wbh2E9RJshYs+1 fsP6K2nhpneJxiXyzBQhLjc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTN1gl1mP5qttxlFZTEJTJsYkABGYQpxJlyqsSM5JUuvwWG9frw3CEx8p+2BQL3fKa56dq1Q==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:ce8d:: with SMTP id r13mr8865014wrn.178.1591866193477; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id l17sm3109185wmi.16.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
From: Tim Chown <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:03:11 +0100
Cc: Colin Perkins <>, John C Klensin <>, ietf <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <5FCC8656386268B41681E1DE@PSB> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
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 09:03:17 -0000

> On 11 Jun 2020, at 01:50, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 11/06/2020 01:20, Colin Perkins wrote:
>> 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.
> That is reasonable. It is equally reasonable to regard this
> as an increase from zero to non-zero. That is why we need
> a community debate, before, and not afterwards.
>> 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 don't think anyone has said that we need this revenue
> now or else are in trouble. Thought has also clearly been
> directed to preventing "unauthorised" access to IETF
> meetings and materials. To me, those strongly imply
> that this is not really perceived as a once-off, but that
> relevant people do consider that we will continue charging
> fees for remote registration. Again, that is not an
> unreasonable proposition, but imposing it on the community
> without debate is unreasonable.

I can see both points of view, but it would help to understand the rationale for the fee if there were some data published - and maybe I missed it - on the administrative cost of running a wholly online IETF meeting.  And whether that fee is covering purely those, or a share of the year on year administrative costs for the IETF.

I have a recollection, but may be wrong, of seeing somewhere it being said that the annual running costs of the IETf were pretty much met by the ISOC financial support, and that meetings ran roughly at break-even.   Is that the case?