Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108

Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> Wed, 03 June 2020 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.h.barnes@gmail.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 AAED73A0EC5; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 12:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 9uN8m5yXjjMN; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 12:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45C443A0EB3; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 12:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id r2so3658450ioo.4; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 12:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7klbF7kSzjJDysDKT/6aLG3DtOV2Ku5sjukHl88shIQ=; b=jXBpEoFaT0gyhiQrm2rCTtnsm3wFbC4bcHuLrQ9G6lkeijUBoRK81Ow3TQJ51pdOtf DbXUBX+NQzfhKUazcwua1G8B8gVmV9ns6eUlRLME98KBHPNsO6Hf7eIEi5Z54MNSxjcB YufzSg5aIVOwU47n200QKDBrbeJ/oFPKfAnhVuUsIb83NZ37EE0GlQNLs10bDnR8RLGY CuMWwvnwVeMOdWQUjPLDxbdm5rNPuU0rFD92buDBZuCFYCttxEbTt71YPKKKK9ArLKh5 I1eN+vB9bpaGhFgKZwlk7AB8IbJuMg9/EkNAoE9tqa+K7gY9wl0NyZv9ztTnsHh1SzCt wOBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7klbF7kSzjJDysDKT/6aLG3DtOV2Ku5sjukHl88shIQ=; b=kq16riq9jGd/B7C8HOebBmc8cv1Sn4tvje8zvCH63Mj0ynVHrf9YRI9yYqEFafRFo3 z+znMLkCkXsy4O6S0WzDooQHzxqQXUis3igStHmnxGOd7YbJ74pT2o3TdaszAKoU2YCL J2Zwqx/57a39LU/J+jdogCtbSiY+BRbz2uwpM0oREo9MDuli/nJlANEVuCuNajnONBYF ozezTwqofhFaG9MGGW9FOAWLFLrF1iV09JBPIbnzIdtvNuh+2pqDyCVyiMfxYwRcgXfA sogq/rBnCaiSgN8wqJVMKJvTILHckbeg+PhG0ru6v2cZM1z6IoHBs8+t1X5UP3m/7hoH yNEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ngSkMBikcMzMmpU+BYU2HBpJ7GwGDGXZh6hrhKNmzMXgHQZlP ZXrJImAnXhU5z0GHH/UZHARBGfSpNUK1AZvIKcVEBg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTk3J4n5+5aw6iGsCZusr3nvzSrwszv4QslJ8AUwOzg5q75I2qefkcGlC7NPdeO2gM6mgffhHD5wG5bbP/AMw=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:3705:: with SMTP id r5mr1332678jar.29.1591213045164; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 12:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <3B19A920-9D33-4E3D-8B8B-8134A5E55316@gmail.com> <86D7C39D-9778-4408-B7CA-CB74E9572B1B@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <86D7C39D-9778-4408-B7CA-CB74E9572B1B@ietf.org>
From: Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:37:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CABmDk8k4+nf9CyMRVNQkY03T8w4=e-woY4Vxau2tLtz=g72tFw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000051aeab05a7332815"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/F3EjwsDfO7b-3WmiAgsR_0WhyTo>
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, 03 Jun 2020 19:37:29 -0000

A simple answer to the t-shirt issue is that t-shirts will be only be
available if you register by a certain date (FCFS) - that's the best
forcing function with this group AFAICT since the cookie count isn't
impacted.

Otherwise, I don't see the point in deadlines either.  I would think you
could get an estimate based on the number that participated remotely for
IETF-108, maybe adding 10%.  Or using the average number of in person
attendees + remote attendees.  I really doubt that having the virtual
meeting would dramatically increase the number of participants and I would
hope the logistics aren't that sensitive to fluctuations in number of
participants.  And, having the late fee could very well backfire and you'll
have a lot more one day folks once people see the agenda and realize they
missed the early bird (or even standard) registration dates, especially for
those of us that are self funded.

I do have a question as to whether those with a one day pass would still be
able to attend the plenary (and any other non-WG meetings that might be
scheduled) even if they attend a regular session on another day (which is
how it is currently)?

Mary.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:15 PM Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> wrote:

> Bob
>
> On 4/06/2020, at 4:32 AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jay,
>
> I have some specific questions about the registration fees for IETF 108 as
> announced.  Note, I am OK with charging a fee for remote participation, but
> I still have questions.  I have reviewed your blog entry [3].
>
> While I support charging a fee to participate, I don’t see any
> justification for having different fee levels (Early, Standard, Late).  Why
> is this being done?   It makes some sense for a face-to-face meeting, where
> we do need to know how many people will be on site, cookies to buy, etc.,
> but that is not the case here.   Do we have a cash flow problem that we
> need to get the money early?   Please explain, this seems completely
> arbitrary to me.
>
>
> As you know the Early/Standard/Late approach was implemented as a forcing
> function on the basis that the earlier people registered, the better the
> planning and it works well in that regard as the bulk of people register in
> the Early Bird phase.  I don’t know when the Early Bird/Standard split came
> but the Late phase was added in 2018:
>
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/jJ8_yArXVOtsw613FP9gol9EjxU/
>
> While an online meeting is different from an in-person meeting there are
> still a number of key variables where the earlier we know, the better the
> planning.  These include: the number of people we need to have on support
> desks, the initial scaling of the infrastructure and how many t-shirts to
> order.
>
>
> How does the fee relate to the costs of running the meeting?    As it said
> in your blog entry:
>
> "As noted above, $515,145 is much higher than the direct cost of running
> an online meeting due to the way we spread some operational costs.”
>
> How much higher is it?   Please share the details.
>
>
> I don’t know the answer to that in detail as we have only started looking
> at this recently.  As explained in the blog post, one third of the annual
> Secretariat labor cost and of some of the annual NOC cost is assigned to
> each meeting. In other words, four months of labor is assigned to each
> meeting.  I have not done the work with the Secretariat to see if that is
> actually one month or more.  Additionally, there are multiple costs
> incurred in the run up to meetings, such as site visits, which are not
> accounted for in the cost (and so would raise it) that would need to be
> incorporated.
>
>
>  I infer the fee is being set do to how the LLC is doing its accounting,
> not related to the direct costs.
>
>
> Yes, though I would say we’ve (LLC and prior to the the IAOC) been
> explicit about that for several years rather than leaving it to inference.
>
>
> I would prefer that the fee be set based on our costs for running the
> meeting.
>
>
> That is a very substantial piece of work with significant implications
> that need to be thought through and in light of those this might not be a
> good idea.  For example, it would show our meeting income greatly exceeding
> our meeting costs, which may lead some participants or some sponsors to
> question our fee levels and that would then cause problems for our
> non-meeting expenses.
>
> As this is the basis on which, for several years, the LLC and the IAOC
> before it has structured its accounts, there would need to be a compelling
> reason to change.
>
> Jay
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 27, 2020, at 6:12 PM, IETF Executive Director <
> exec-director@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> As previously announced [1], IETF 108 is switching to a fully online
> meeting over 5 days, 25-31 July, with an agenda structure similar to that
> of an in-person meeting [2].
>
> Registrations will open on 8 June 2020 and the registration fees will be
> as follows:
>
>   Early-Bird:  USD 230, until 26 June 2020
>   Standard:  USD 280, until 20 July 2020
>   Late:  USD 330, after 20 July 2020
>   Full-time Student:  USD 50
>   One Day Pass:  USD 125
>
> 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].
>
> As online participants have until now not had to pay a fee, it is
> recognised that there may be some for whom the fee presents a barrier to
> participation and so we will provide up to 100 early bird fee waivers for
> IETF 108. If the number of waiver requests exceeds the number we can offer,
> waiver recipients will be chosen at random using a process similar to the
> one specified in RFC 3797. Details of how to apply for a waiver will be
> provided when registration opens.
>
> No decision has been made on whether or not a fee for online participation
> is needed when we return to in-person meetings.
>
> As this is a fully online meeting, there are two key changes in the
> meeting process for you to be aware of:
>
> 1.  When you register you will be able to choose if you want to receive an
> IETF 108 t-shirt delivered to you at no additional expense. Numbers will be
> limited to 1000 t-shirts on a first-come-first-served basis with 900 for
> Early Birds and 100 for Students.
>
> 2.  All participants will need a Datatracker account in order to
> authenticate with Meetecho.  If you do not already have an account then one
> will be created for you during registration and you will receive a password
> setup link by email.
>
> As with in-person meetings, a video recording of each scheduled session
> will be posted after the session concludes and the proceedings will be
> posted in the normal timeframe following the meeting.
>
> Finally, we are still in the process of securing sponsors with some
> generous contributions already agreed and more under discussion.  Full
> details and thanks will follow later.
>
> Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions or
> comments.
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/kzC7M48oKrAwdh9uyOvseeKFW3A/
> [2]  https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf108-survey-results-informed-planning/
> [3]  https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf108-registration-fees
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> exec-director@ietf.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
>
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> jay@ietf.org
>
>