Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 10 June 2020 23:36 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 DFA0A3A15B6; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 26QgUEfXJddM; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E81F3A15B2; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49j3Ky5hMNzMlH; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:36:54 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1591832214; bh=WoyshsnTzPbqTmuk1zQofMYyyIU/eA/z56CwkTEu6mk=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=hHpvCw0LgEFE7lGrMe/TLaAyD4IJJgcOTJYSsXLdgcDd0cLk43E8oZMcfalOHKkW8 tm2z4VVR80e8Mn5VoKyF++5FrjbyBx82t9QAKnBiRWkJ3pzgb+bCThbvFgJEZSF4Ot Zd0JE8bsNRhZETL86VKtG07b+hVdkSIrYwTWLapg=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WrzI_CgfD5XY; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:36:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:36:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [193.111.228.74] (unknown [193.111.228.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84EE06020D59; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:36:52 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:36:35 -0400
Message-Id: <0713E4D5-BAAE-44B5-840B-0A25E0399289@nohats.ca>
References: <35fb0076-a240-096a-de7f-280d5e7ad1e3@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "ietf108planning@ietf.org" <ietf108planning@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, "exec-director@ietf.org" <exec-director@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <35fb0076-a240-096a-de7f-280d5e7ad1e3@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17F75)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/H1RmnhGXyG8t4NJ-ISxt8kqlV34>
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, 10 Jun 2020 23:36:59 -0000

On Jun 10, 2020, at 18:10, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I think the best outcome here would be to waive
> 100% and not 100 of the remote registration fees for
> IETF108 and let the community debate this before such
> decisions are taken. If we cannot afford that, then
> please say so clearly - that would be a relevant fact.
> But if we could afford that, I really don't get why
> it's ok to barge ahead like this.


I agree with Stephen. I’m a bit puzzled why an online meeting would need to recoup a lot of money. 

Paul