Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Colin Perkins <> Thu, 11 June 2020 00:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25DC3A15D8; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fqxLAY2K667S; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 254C83A15D7; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:Subject:From; bh=SyLz+Sq7WOWvAb+jJtUgugYX48mBDY6EFMIDUUbRbok=; b=H39qp+1aOPSEabAlAviWihiqSF ZsOlfLZfVJRVWzyghb1IlBdQtbzos4Hs8B+wWW5LrWYvA5PYBmN6pIdmbLTMSMEvbune+VB+jc959 XPlHD3p9+ZIN6sYhBEcKmyLYh5smXqhUUAs6O6smCK67FxsbEbq/Y4gtt4MlOltGTYsMaqMrxXu4g Zll0pF22kqOrb/UOtLrn7N1RVCMwgnLv8ZZZYD3W5c/VqF1vFBphfBiAU+OqVUv/q+BTkpL9tWwWP haBnadTZxS7xf61JgY1kbNdLaglWZN6NK31CZ1OLRlQinwqKvymQt3fJdaVqFkD2pQDA4y4g/00op nrQYQtBw==;
Received: from [] (port=43645 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <>) id 1jjBAw-0006wl-6y; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:34:38 +0100
From: Colin Perkins <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4C19698C-F31C-4188-A1EE-606208961A51"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:34:31 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: George Michaelson <>, ietf <>, "" <>, "" <>
To: Ole Jacobsen <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 14
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 00:34:43 -0000

> On 11 Jun 2020, at 01:18, Ole Jacobsen <> wrote:
> I agree 100% with George and would just add NANOG to the list of meetings
> that went from f2f to online. NANOG used a cute “enter coupon FREE at
> at checkout” approach which then discounted the fee to $0.00.

I attended an academic conference online for free today. I also just paid a registration fee to attend another online conference, taking place in a couple of weeks. 

> Most of all, it seems to me that the timing aspect of this decision
> is all wrong. It really doesn’t seem that long ago that we had IETF 107
> go online followed shortly thereafter by various lockdowns all over the world.
> I agree that the issue is not so much the actual fee as it is a change
> in model and the perception of our open process. Those active dedicated
> participants who would normally attend in person will probably still
> brave the timezone challenge and attend, while “lurkers” and observers
> who are otherwise unable to attend might just not bother if they have
> to pay. At the end of the day, I do not think that is good for our community.

We’ve put session recordings on YouTube, and made slides, minutes, and other materials available on the website for free for many years. That’s not changing – anyone who is lurking and observing can continue to do so, for free.

> One datapoint: The RIPE meeting which went “virtual” in May had *record* attendance (and no fee).

I’d be interested to see how the RIPE funding model compares to that of IETF. 

Colin Perkins