Re: 48 hour consultation on response to feedback on registration fees for IETF 108
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 17 June 2020 19:57 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
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 83DAB3A0D5F; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
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 TKNiO2AmR76r; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ECB43A0D5D; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.18.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 05HJvYZK010194 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1592423866; x=1592510266; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Q8wyOML1yHAoYCt9vo7LlJ13/v5UHQSuMrmu0RWAc7E=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Xo6YDVV17v0XF1YxE1q1JUksipH5swy+seHBSWaL5Gz5YwtkZmntY4QgDzfZOHSnu MirYhpv6wL+Q7A34vE96iwpJMgQ9/4UtSx1ehYz3H/93HQSeM46DWekRW1XH0A64Hr Pz3Top4u1NZaAeMhOBSzNys8QKQDyCvrWhiaAsrE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200617020159.0833c628@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:54:37 -0700
To: llc-board@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: 48 hour consultation on response to feedback on registration fees for IETF 108
In-Reply-To: <159228074098.9752.4311605509238262070@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <159228074098.9752.4311605509238262070@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/AY7pY0cEHFl4RD7STZkB0U-CKq4>
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: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 19:57:59 -0000
Dear IETF Administration LLC, At 09:12 PM 15-06-2020, IETF Executive Director wrote: >The IETF Administration LLC has reviewed the feedback provided by >the community in response to its decision regarding registration >fees for IETF 108 [1] and invites further community feedback on >proposed changes to address this feedback. I would like to thank the IETF Administration LLC (LLC) for providing an opportunity to comment. There was a discussion which concluded with the publication of RFC 8788. That RFC states that "an update to BCP 10 will be necessary to address future eligibility, as there will be time for proper community work on such an update". Although the LLC does not have any authority on the matter, the decision which it will take will have an impact on RFC 8713. One of the advantages of labeling entrance as free is that it is that the term is well-understood in several countries. In an honor system, the person is expected to determine whether he/she fulfill the conditions for free entrance. How will that experiment be evaluated to determine whether it is a success or a failure? Regards, S. Moonesamy
- Fwd: 48 hour consultation on response to feedback… Jay Daley
- Re: Fwd: 48 hour consultation on response to feed… Stephen Farrell
- Re: 48 hour consultation on response to feedback … Alissa Cooper
- Re: 48 hour consultation on response to feedback … Stephen Farrell
- Re: 48 hour consultation on response to feedback … S Moonesamy