Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Mon, 01 June 2020 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 958D93A091C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 09:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.973, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=AsBHq8y/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=NieZBSQq
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 p_lxB_zJXkPn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 09:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 234E63A0911 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 09:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91641F80331 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 12:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1591029118; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=OHOi1M74sUYd4I5CN5T8ljtP8HVHZiHBuzLyMB5v7f4=; b=AsBHq8y/zvXsQBwbqTR3LCkzUk90bHGtRpEMcu7Vf7hCpZ/B4QZzDnUu6na60dQuLZ/0O mELlLppORfjhXvGDw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1591029118; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=OHOi1M74sUYd4I5CN5T8ljtP8HVHZiHBuzLyMB5v7f4=; b=NieZBSQqian/P+8bESu3C4aZR6h6zE5egM6gq2LQglunVSn8Hp0oKjn36WBkur7Hu44GU QvlVzv5+K65OftWFuAepuTx7Sh/bg4i6j/wM0CuV56dZtOIgD/0+S/pYFGePn6k3xfLC4zB EPi2aiOc2rjF3X247ZY0mqjlKtnxCx7awi3Q2bR5RMOuEUKoZfI6+i1V6TSOylDNsVzztec 45rBhmbkJW+8gc4B2KLsSl3AIbcpANk526mW2Zeydi8i7UdO3EhMpQXdjesFwAVPMo6H6Fw mDpNoYRhhAnTEvEkZ0q0+wn++dr+IzxHzj+Tp3VaV+zgNSwHmi1BjTU31eZg==
Received: from sk-desktop.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F3EF801A0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 12:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 12:31:58 -0400
Message-ID: <2724267.HMFkJ4LKqx@sk-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <616FD1DE-C25F-44CE-9FA3-CC00943FC98B@cable.comcast.com>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <B71999A2-3EC6-4649-864F-674BA494B511@gmail.com> <616FD1DE-C25F-44CE-9FA3-CC00943FC98B@cable.comcast.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QRHaYaVNXVjH8fGLc05zO58t7ho>
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 16:32:04 -0000

Amazingly enough, I've participated in several IETF meetings, when needed for 
drafts I was working on, without being charged for it, so I'm curious about 
this 'discount' I'm now going to get.

Scott K

On Monday, June 1, 2020 11:07:43 AM EDT Livingood, Jason wrote:
> It's interesting that the issue has been framed as a new fee will be charged
> to participate in an IETF meeting. But there's been a fee to attend an IETF
> meeting for as long as I've participated in the IETF. I might suggest that
> another way of considering this is that the typical meeting fee is being
> discounted for the virtual meeting.
 
> Jason
> (not speaking for the IETF LLC - personal view)
> 
> On 6/1/20, 8:39 AM, "ietf on behalf of Suresh Krishnan"
> <ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> wrote:
 
>     +1. I think this is a reasonable decision and allows people to
> participate without financial barriers, while allowing the ongoing
> activities funded by IETF meeting fees to proceed without interruption.
 
>     Regards
>     Suresh
> 
> 
>     > On May 31, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>     > wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > I agree with Eric in his description.  From where I sit, this seems a
>     > reasonable decision by the leadership.
    >
>     >
>     >
>     > Yours,
>     > Joel
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On 5/31/2020 5:13 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>     > 
>     >> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 1:56 PM S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com
>     >> <mailto:sm%2Bietf@elandsys.com>> wrote:
    >> 
>     >>    Dear Internet Engineering Steering Group,
>     >>    [Reply-To override]
>     >>    At 06:12 PM 27-05-2020, IETF Executive Director wrote:
>     >>    
>     >>     >This meeting will have a substantial agenda but as the cost of
>     >>     >an
>     >>     >online meeting is lower, the registration fees have been set at
>     >>     >approximately one-third of those for an in-person meeting.  A
>     >>     >detailed explanation of why we charge a fee for meetings and how
>     >>     >the
>     >>     >fee reduction was set for IETF 108 is provided in a separate
>     >>     >blog
>     >>    
>     >>    post [3].
>     >>    In 2013, the IETF Chair affirmed that the Internet Engineering
>     >>    Task
>     >>    Force embraced the modern paradigm for standards.  One of the
>     >>    points
>     >>    in the document is the standards process being open to all
>     >>    interested
>     >>    and informed parties.  If I recall correctly, I raised a point a
>     >>    few
>     >>    months before 2013 about the IETF allowing free access to its
>     >>    meetings through the Internet.  I could not help noticing that
>     >>    there
>     >>    is now a required fee to access the next IETF meeting.  Was that
>     >>    approved by the IESG?
>     >>    I took a look at the meeting policy for the IETF.  I never
>     >>    understood
>     >>    why that policy is described as an ambition.  Anyway, as that
>     >>    policy
>     >>    does not specify anything about changing the existing practice
>     >>    for
>     >>    fees, it is unlikely that the decision to charge for online
>     >>    meetings
>     >>    can be challenged.
>     >>    I would like to thank the IETF LLC Directors for acknowledging
>     >>    that
>     >>    the fee presents a barrier to participation and their charitable
>     >>    offer.  I'll leave the charitable offer to those who are in need.
>     >>    It took a decade for the IETF to take this pay-to-play decision. 
>     >>    Was
>     >>    there any discussion about it?
>     >> 
>     >> I don't think the characterization of this as "pay-to-play" is
>     >> accurate. You
 are certainly free to participate in mailing lists,
>     >> github, etc.
>     >> What is being charged here is a fee to participate [0] in real-time
>     >> virtual
 meetings, just as there is one charged for attending
>     >> in-person meetings. -Ekr
>     >> [0] I emphasize "real-time" as I expect that the recordings will be
>     >> available
 after the fact as usual.
>     >
>     >
> 
>