Re: Registration details for IETF 108

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 31 May 2020 20:55 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 2966E3A0B6C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.024
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.973, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, TO_MALFORMED=0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) 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 xNLjIq0OCuTZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66623A0B5B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.117.216]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 04VKt38U023699 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 31 May 2020 13:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1590958516; x=1591044916; i=@elandsys.com; bh=BsoAQJQ3PwdkTgcWlOOI9eJS61qX7sm4v00tTZHIIJw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Dxdka/fwMoM8BgL5KLr2IGrTr6+hctNfJb/OGWi5Yv9TmkYeGGh3WeQVdmMNb28cD UINvt6pYzCZ2Ceg0Rm4bkCuzvPcxIpGq19NONnxaYKYSdY7SVjw5oA6tqlkLQl9zDL zEJhj5M1pJlQAU7fnjFP/MyX87jvvbBkSP1kbUrQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200531121457.0b249858@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 13:54:20 -0700
To: iesg@ietf
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@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/CIqFhlAu3RQfNmxhuLcxJkrQhfM>
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: Sun, 31 May 2020 20:55:26 -0000

Dear Internet Engineering Steering Group,

[Reply-To override]

At 06:12 PM 27-05-2020, IETF Executive Director wrote:
>This meeting will have a substantial agenda but as the cost of an 
>online meeting is lower, the registration fees have been set at 
>approximately one-third of those for an in-person meeting.  A 
>detailed explanation of why we charge a fee for meetings and how the 
>fee reduction was set for IETF 108 is provided in a separate blog post [3].

In 2013, the IETF Chair affirmed that the Internet Engineering Task 
Force embraced the modern paradigm for standards.  One of the points 
in the document is the standards process being open to all interested 
and informed parties.  If I recall correctly, I raised a point a few 
months before 2013 about the IETF allowing free access to its 
meetings through the Internet.  I could not help noticing that there 
is now a required fee to access the next IETF meeting.  Was that 
approved by the IESG?

I took a look at the meeting policy for the IETF.  I never understood 
why that policy is described as an ambition.  Anyway, as that policy 
does not specify anything about changing the existing practice for 
fees, it is unlikely that the decision to charge for online meetings 
can be challenged.

I would like to thank the IETF LLC Directors for acknowledging that 
the fee presents a barrier to participation and their charitable 
offer.  I'll leave the charitable offer to those who are in need.

It took a decade for the IETF to take this pay-to-play decision.  Was 
there any discussion about it?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy