Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 11/06/2020, at 2:39 PM, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 6/10/20 6:21 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
>> As well as stating that you see this a switch from a zero to non-zero
>> fee, I think you’ve also stated that such a switch can only be made with
>> community consensus.  Given that you and some others firmly oppose this
>> switch it would seem that community consensus could not be achieved
>> within the necessary timeframe to make such as switch for IETF 108, if
>> at all, no matter what process was used to try to find consensus. 
> Well, I don't know about that.  Stephen can (and does, with
> admirable vigor) make his own arguments but from my perspective
> this discussion really hasn't grappled in any meaningful way with
> the question of openness and the IETF's working method.
> Introducing a fee for all remote participation in IETF meetings
> introduces a new barrier to participation[*].  It's not simply about
> the money, per se.  And if we're introducing barriers to
> participation in ways that impact the openness of the process,
> it does seem inappropriate to do that without some fairly
> deliberate community discussion.
> 
> Melinda
> 
> [*] The fee waiver program strikes me as a bandaid, not a solution.

If the fee waiver programme were uncapped then would you still regard that as a bandaid?

Jay


> -- 
> Melinda Shore
> [e-mail]
> 
> Software longa, hardware brevis
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]