Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 6/11/20 12:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>> On Jun 11, 2020, at 2:42 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> If the fee waiver programme were uncapped then would you still regard that as a bandaid?
>>> Jay
>> I'm going to reply at this point in the thread with some thoughts I haven't seen expressed yet.
>> Much of the commentary against registration fees has come from or on behalf of people who struggle to pay the fees.
>> Much of the commentary for registration fees has come from people who do not struggle to pay the fees.
>>
>> As someone who doesn't struggle to pay the fee (because my employer finds it a significant savings over what would have been paid), but who recognizes that others do struggle, what I would have preferred would be:
>>
>> Put a statement on the registration page:
>>
>> IETF needs to raise $515,145 to pay for costs that would normally have been covered by in-person registration fees. See https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf108-registration-fees/ for more details. We request that those who are able to pay the fees do so. Any who are not able, please simply check the "waiver request" box. You will then be able to register for free. If your company would like to help sponsor our experiment with unlimited waivers (to enable IETF to continue allowing all to contribute, regardless of situation) , please contact us at <email>.
>>
>> And then have unlimited and automatic waiver.
>>
>> IETF likes to experiment. So we should experiment with a trust model. Trust that only those who need the waiver will request it, and see what happens.
>> Barbara
>
> I really like this idea.
>
Not to be a wet blanket but what happens if corpro bean counters find 
out that they can game the system for the cost of a checkbox?

Mike