Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Thu, 11 June 2020 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF583A0945 for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id URYgqwnIm4BG for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C657F3A0943 for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c194so6972963oig.5 for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NxUE1yx2v8ce3m9873ttBiLy/i9hYubLe4Ix2OkQkYg=; b=e6Os0mv06MaslNWsWLnP0d5/RPVTNeCDeBUJkSSCK0HWKADdDAV9As7lCk19T317Qu mj7z3Udi+Hsr9S9y3vnySqpESPhWrVTz/7Mur8MCrHvfqHieXNEJ3WNNZs0h8f5y+xow QvUbpdQGEDiCScubaPNUpmkBr15AhqKp+ESuplhZtavsqDG8Itm3SRVnJB6sL1fCrb01 neRIUwZhNdG4RhdrCiwlgfek86BpaQiqZI+pAuJ15YK1VrQAEzPnota+5o1RrrruvRIz rRtMDITg2g2iWYBpVdRj4WvpLSXEls8haq66VSEU+poNJftJ7cz+Qt2C7oH4sb1mMRh8 sE8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533okDnU0EExntaY4GCSeU79ltjHkQ6FjcYgv+lDKGIYKn4cTTLD KPsL3tyElvd8CcgRIMrLAMDqIuZPp+RHyWuG4/Te09z0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwwbyAJhY9bc08Kb0QH8B/xbLlP661tVvEJJKm0a2hxMTNtsdUe1mbJmRM4+yjX589ACMdj0RoUvrK6YQO79wI=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:d10:: with SMTP id 16mr200984oin.166.1591915318022; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20200611011728.9AC071A5EFB6@ary.qy> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 18:41:46 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <>, John Levine <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>, Colin Perkins <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000b198005a7d6ab0c"
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 22:42:00 -0000

I don't think name and shame is going to be needed. Key thing is to make it
as easy as possible to renew.

How many of us have gym memberships they don't use, domain names they don't
use, subscriptions for services they don't use?

Allow folk to pay $45/month...

When I finally get a MVP for the Mesh, the business model for the bootstrap
service will be a Freemium subscription model. Sure, the whole system is
designed to allow anyone to operate their own system if they choose and to
make switching costs really low. But I know from experience that most
services are sticky.

I just discovered a Vonage account I am not really using. Thats $45.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:25 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> wrote:

> Lucky everyone. I read this thread all the way to the bottom, and smart
> people said much of what I was thinking, so you don't have to read my take
> on it. But on a couple of points ...
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:18 PM Brian E Carpenter <
>> wrote:
>> Portmanteau reply to several messages:
>> On 12-Jun-20 07:12, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> > Not to be a wet blanket but what happens if corpro bean counters find
>> > out that they can game the system for the cost of a checkbox?
>> I think that can be avoided by making it clear that "name and shame" is a
>> possibility.
> Shame is relative. Jason already pointed us to Jay for additional
> sponsors; we can shame in public or we can contact organizations privately
> and say "we noticed that you have about 20 (to pick a number) attendees who
> said they needed waivers to attend these meetings that seem to be important
> enough that they signed up and participated at awkward local times. We
> offer waivers to people who need waivers, but the meetings can't happen if
> everyone is on waivers. Do your folks need waivers, or can you help support
> these meetings in the future?"
> We can always move towards shaming in public if we need to, but it's hard
> to back off from it, once you've tried it :-)
> And, re: "students/young people are our future", I'm still startled to
> hear how many of key attributes of the Internet came from people I know
> now, but didn't realize that they were graduate students when they
> made those contributions. So, +1 to that.
> Best,
> Spencer