Re: Registration open for IETF 108

[Mary B <[e-mail]>]

And, one other thought on the waiver would be that rather than taking the
random pool approach would be to have a registration option, for those that
don't have a sponsor or for whom the fee is a financial challenge, and
allow folks to make a donation when they register.  Some of us have said in
the past that we'd be willing to pay something and in the end, you might
get folks donating more than you'd get from one day passes, for example.

Regards,
Mary.

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:28 AM Mary B <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:02 AM Livingood, Jason <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> > This drives home, in quantitative terms, a message that others
>>     have been trying to deliver: If we have people from developing
>>     countries who have been participating remotely for some time,
>>     the effect of these registration fees (at least without the
>>     waiver lottery) is to exclude their participation and reduce the
>>     IETF's diversity -- and likely the quality of the standards
>>     process and the international credibility of our work -- from
>>     both demographic and perspective standpoints.
>>
>> I believe this is one of the reasons that the waiver program was created
>> and encourage anyone in this situation or the others articulated in the
>> past few days to apply for a waiver.
>>
> [MB] So, the waiver is a good thing. But, there is a limit on the number
> and names are chosen randomly as I understand it.  I would think a better
> approach would be to ensure that those that are in countries where this is
> a month's wage not be in a random pool.  There are a number of folks that
> are self-sponsored so the fee is totally out of pocket and not covered by
> their company, in which case it's the tedious aspect of filling out an
> expense report versus funds that could be otherwise used by the individual
> for other business expenses.   I'm in that latter pool and will not apply
> for a waiver so that folks that come from countries like that are more
> likely to get the waiver.  So, I really think it should be truly need based
> (or at least half the pool in that category).  It is worded somewhat
> that way on the registration form, but the email announcement wasn't as
> specific.   I know you have some demographics from surveys but I'm guessing
> probably not enough to really know how many remote attendees might end up
> in that pool. [/MB]
>
>>
>> FWIW, there is an IETF LLC board meeting later this week (feel free to
>> attend). I have asked for an update at that time during the public part on
>> the number of IETF-108 registrations as well as the number of waiver
>> applications.
>>
>> Jason (with my LLC hat on, but not an official board statement)
>>
>>
>>