Re: Registration details for IETF 108

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:26 PM Pete Resnick <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > I think you're asking a different question than the one Stephen and I
> > disagree about ("What do I think of this policy") rather than ("Who is
> > the stuckee for making this type of policy"?).
>
> No, I was asking about the stuckee. It sounded to me in your original
> message that since all meeting operation was in their remit, therefore
> pricing of remote-access to meetings was in their remit. I am asking,
> since email operation is in their remit, whether pricing for email
> access is in their remit.
>
> Then let me answer both questions at once, then:  If the IESG attempted to
impose such a silly fee, I would tell them they were out of bounds.  If the
LLC did, I would tell them not to be so silly*.

> I think my answer to Steven is pretty clear on the question you didn't
> > ask; let me know if you disagree.
>
> It wasn't to me. That's why I asked.
>
>
I hope that was clear,

regards,

Ted

*At one time the IETF worked on hashcash type anti-SPAM measures (Cullen's
work on computational puzzles in SIP springs to mind) and there is one
parallel universe at least where they succeeded enough that proof-of-work
ended up making sense for email anti-spam systems.  Attempting to use that
in such a parallel universe might be an operational enough decision to fall
to the LLC.  But using the fees such a process generated (if any) to fund
the IETF would still be wrong-headed, and I expect that universe's me would
say so.



> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
>