RE: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Adrian Farrel <> Thu, 11 June 2020 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80E23A079D; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FrK8vwCzqZgQ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8C3E3A177B; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 05B9KAVN012805; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:20:10 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142E122040; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:20:10 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2DDD2203C; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:20:09 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 05B9K8UC001285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:20:09 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Alissa Cooper'" <>
Cc: "'ietf'" <>, <>
References: <> <> <> <5FCC8656386268B41681E1DE@PSB> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:20:06 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <050501d63fd1$8027b910$80772b30$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0506_01D63FD9.E1ECBD50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJGnief3wF43Lkqt7ps6VQHLQyNqAHpeESPAVf8ey0CqZqlzwEQiyb7AcLn494CnwAQ6QFuDnk+ATVn+vWngls6cA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--20.373-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--20.373-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--20.373500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 0lhM5bBmjEPxIbpQ8BhdbPHkpkyUphL9rkGhd90/DD5HZV4wjqvwyHOu 2R3jcaRqX/FdXQdFwlC4+lATcHKqDYPN2a+Tga3SIAW3RGezdqHg4JUWkvDlB4xRWJphhsrcabt eRFPzJKADztXan/uwznfdPMd/jFtL4Kvk5MT6O8HfN6fVv5OHyrqGBW9J0YqjHDDNR6SIQSFQGS k7lzeLmum1xQkPjs+Jg+v9mYDOjmnI81lfDJJ4KZjnsVPBNMvRrdWvfWjvttnlkdO7EhJ1QL7It ozLGgGlttxfwmEpb/36A4Npg6khT7di5+5RlO7dvoQkZKo949MYgyDj5TiRtVpL53A87aJb9VlG BjCDncjm+cCV8unw6Jcf/fKAePhQmRkGItO9kH7QfyKEYQc1R3pDIEzkG1RbHDQcqEqNN+mxj28 fYwl4hDba6gSbbjl+WBQVNPtj1ClhNnaZf6fHDAi0LLplf+UvghZKmuN2x5scI/pZs+xxLzB+Sf ZtVtOPHyMUKw5nNCKX6ygEq2dUre5NCr61QzTwJDuWzfvz/MceIblhH0Sn6QoDY6gYCVOTyvYy8 7XhGVspTvNzKFoS2tYHxVr9gN7RblRUOPmdAoacxB01DrjF9+d5mGsevLdfDC/Vm90If4UVcJR4 XudE5h9dNNIDxhi7j3Omy92nmOjIbcV1dkIKk4vptQwz5tsiwSJcbRHuoMfDv5dDcuT2eRj0Zuw ViIkejyXC7yPnZ4gUAF4uBmvRkR8TzIzimOwPgxsfzkNRlfIDOZGFGsyhFbDszp3K5gqDjt1LrO /BC8LPvzkEPAwhDZsOYwZqQ41PD/xd2fQBp4/VAgFsZxfSnQ==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
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 09:20:21 -0000

> (Sorry, responding to myself.)


The best, and perhaps only, way to get a sensible response.


> The other thing I should have said is that we don’t have any good

> guess on the size of the participant population that is price-sensitive

> at the $230 reg fee level, since most in-person participants have to

> pay 2x or 4x the registration fee to travel to a meeting, and remote

> participation at in-person meetings is free. Therefore, aside from

> the survey data, we don’t have a great way to estimate the demand

> for fee waivers, and it may be the case that the pool of 100 will be

> enough to meet the demand, in which case we won’t need any

> selection process.


So, I’m a little confused (not hard to achieve).


If it turns out that 100 waivers are enough, then surely 300 would also be enough.


But I am also confused as to why we call this “a waiver”. It looks, from the various statements, that the waiver scheme is sponsored by Google and Futurewei. I for one am very grateful to these companies for their generosity and support of making the IETF more accessible and open. However, what appears to be described is a bursary scheme not a waiver scheme. That is, all attendance still has a cost: the question is simply who is covering that cost.


And maybe this is the point. If this was truly a waiver scheme then the cost of increasing the number of users of the scheme would be zero (additional people attending who would not otherwise attend does not cost AFAICS). It is only if the scheme is a bursary that it needs to be limited to the size of the bursary (presumably capped at $23k) and some way has to be found to choose between a greater number of applicants.


Am I right?

*	There is a fee for everyone to attend
*	The attendance fees for up to 100 people will be kindly met by sponsors
*	There is no scope for waiving the attendance fees
*	There is no scope for seeking additional sponsors


Many thanks for continuing to work through these details against a tight timeline.