Re: Registration details for IETF 108

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 03 June 2020 01:38 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 91CE23A11CD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 18:38:50 -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 bGfMjNgTkhae for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 18:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96C23A11CB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 18:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.82.240]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 0531cO72000017 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Jun 2020 18:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1591148322; x=1591234722; i=@elandsys.com; bh=gDtStZYgQAD2Fu6G+jiSfMGxA5CHXXJTgqgKfzwUxl8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=3StDbmr0151bPFveEjxM4Ff7Mh/RrgZfPjPKuey200T7ANz0Vt/cggZyyGiDqYVpu HL6yvniYXn9Pab6cRyhsSKStmhA9yZcWLvdvEHap0prV/J9nyKA92UFkr6lMxN/Yhc PyMwBWQ81QHDL09sDRtVAfp2qFYADt2bvkPm7IoI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200602165510.0bd6b1a0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 18:08:36 -0700
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDrsRoCPFyzU7HJWoFqgg3jQ4rszQvNRMzUAAhVwn=k0w@mail.g mail.com>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200531121457.0b249858@elandnews.com> <CABcZeBOzVHaSZa0A3eDz12RwNuCiHtiJL8wqvAhhLPN6YEQOkQ@mail.gmail.com> <3f9a0e50-c01b-01c6-ad52-95f370baeb8d@joelhalpern.com> <B71999A2-3EC6-4649-864F-674BA494B511@gmail.com> <616FD1DE-C25F-44CE-9FA3-CC00943FC98B@cable.comcast.com> <A9DBD8B0-01B3-4C68-91B3-BD1E99E226BA@gmail.com> <70d1493c-4c00-f32e-8996-72d0a8369571@comcast.net> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <9F71F116-D7B2-4ECE-9000-957A0C497404@ietf.org> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$@gmail.com> <CABcZeBOLAw_9s-gobFYB=5THu_Q70UmDLn_ZhVXhNRHN_nu_0w@mail.gmail.com> <607b7682-0a75-62b6-fd0e-5e2e1171a68b@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMBEqhn115ToB0SwOGavmXze4DdJdL941J4LeVMRrPngpQ@mail.gmail.com> <e1b804ae-4c2e-fdf3-8804-47820d35facf@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMC8ZWHaCBg=WzwtriVf-3bq=egupVgAH-J7dSqspwLoFw@mail.gmail.com> <a19c3066-bfa7-ded2-d98f-b5e367645451@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMDrsRoCPFyzU7HJWoFqgg3jQ4rszQvNRMzUAAhVwn=k0w@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IcEpMQm0TSB-hQh9KQ5GpZULf_0>
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 01:38:51 -0000

Hi Ted,
At 02:41 PM 02-06-2020, Ted Hardie wrote:
>Well, we agree that we disagree.  From my perspective, zero is not a 
>magic number, and the status quo is not doctrine.  Both, in the 
>case, are part of a balancing act that goes into making sure the 
>IETF works both for a meeting and for the long term.  Handing 
>financial responsibility for that without the relevant authority is 
>an invitation to silly states.

I read an email about "registration details" and that was went I was 
informed that there would be a fee for IETF 108.  I asked who took 
the decision as it was not clear.  I did not argue for or against 
whether a fee should be charged.

The next meeting will be covered by the "Note Well".  It is standards 
process as that has been the custom.  It has been free for me to 
attend or participate.  Now, it is not free.  In my opinion, it is 
not up to the IETF Administration LLC Executive Director to decide 
that.  That opinion is based on the discussions and documents from 
IASA2.  It might sound silly that such a decision requires debate 
given that the fee was $1; it is not about the amount.

There is a research group which scheduled a session about "rights" at 
the next meeting.  I'll wait and see what it will do.  For what it is 
worth, I am not into digital rights as it could potentially cause a conflict.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy