IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Fri, 12 June 2020 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 688783A0852; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m4R5c-zadctz; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 048B53A0841; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E853548011; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:26:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 8A22B440043; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:26:51 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:26:51 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
Message-ID: <20200612142651.GB26731@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <98B3DAEE-F9B7-47C1-AE0E-4559D1572740@gmail.com> <5DE19E46-9DEA-4E93-80DD-A3C076B072DC@ietf.org> <20200612072354.GA26731@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <70252074-6D1C-4E37-BDCA-DA059D127BFE@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <70252074-6D1C-4E37-BDCA-DA059D127BFE@ietf.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8LxX3yRpPE_uZFRD9VGxNz7s1ng>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:27:04 -0000

Thanks, Jay

Hope you asked those lost sponsors under which type of enhancements to
a virtual meeting they would consider to sponsor again.

Given how you where not specific in your answer, i can only speculate
which type of sponsoring was affected.

Commercial poster/product-demo sponsored sessions for example shouldn't
be too difficult to replicate virtually and showing up in the agenda
Virtual bits&bites with separate webex channel per demo for example..
 - Time Chown et.al. posted some interesting video clips
of creating virtual spaces in which to show posters etc.. Looked
rough, but exactly the direction thats needed. Foremost for
non-marketing purpose, but why not use it for that too.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:58:46PM +1200, Jay Daley wrote:
> > On 12/06/2020, at 7:23 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > Jay,
> > 
> > Where did IETF loose 137,559 in sponsoring between Madrid and Virtual ?
> 
> Our sponsorship contracts for in-person meetings are very specific to in-person meetings and so when we switch an in-person meeting to online those contracts are voided.  Some do not translate to an on online meeting as they are specific to a part of the meeting that is not replicated, while others are at a lower level to recognise the different nature of the meeting.
> 
> Jay
> 
> > 
> > Cheers
> >    Toerless
> > 
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 09:34:35PM +1200, Jay Daley wrote:
> >> Tim
> >> 
> >>> On 11/06/2020, at 9:03 PM, Tim Chown <tjc.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> 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.
> >> 
> >> Answers in this blog post
> >> 
> >> 	https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf108-registration-fees/
> >> 
> >> Jay
> >> -- 
> >> Jay Daley
> >> IETF Executive Director
> > 
> > -- 
> > ---
> > tte@cs.fau.de
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ietf108planning mailing list
> > Ietf108planning@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> jay@ietf.org
> 

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email