RE: Registration details for IETF 108

Mehmet Ersue <> Tue, 02 June 2020 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E153A0538; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 03:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 mreaYZgniCUl; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 03:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B7D03A045B; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 03:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x6so2836519wrm.13; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 03:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language; bh=/skP6FDZ+mpYbMArT0WhJQwRqGAIFhQFZbEM1gDW3FY=; b=NGKFwqwJpx4ZfiOcdQRPe8WX1SqYpRmLzRW54RrG43/3dYJ4VGlE0mSNdjeivzJIrU ecQc19ld2AUaUuppd45sADPZ5FwqBI6lbRj1HYU9lwuecvrnQ6TgSxHghcuxsOUkOrkg kyByn5Jn7G98WSNJNrNFRGV8LNFgUJ3N5dZ4cLalhXuQmSwa0+HUlTqYkGZYe6YBzS8K QhhWik4tmbyFtGV45p+fdjovUexOSejRwcyvxk+GxOUBlvARlLIz1691y7Vs4YU8sDjy uyvoZGxjmjdZC4I425X3/FGU8dtQ2e7+ADAFlSx9T+kDhR3DHpwVbIX7A1Pynj9Het6A PGBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=/skP6FDZ+mpYbMArT0WhJQwRqGAIFhQFZbEM1gDW3FY=; b=ddM2tJiQpfkM6Ykl1B3KUwFjhq9eH3kp58C+VlXQrIIqC3CvaBwKvG8exhQyeOBHNj Np1k1otE6fY1PXU68fw5iwjMpNv5JDusqjBTtrrMxu+NN2bhRNS6F0ApaLrjbTIYBVFA 1BodUl8TCeD3xYmVLQ8S25lacWR+ZUsT4ICZvmfuPDJuWSDLqfZAMsDAMYxiTgn5YSUN TMrkOWpu6XzRqkl4L5l8v7ur81GNyKgG31w14nIIJH+xioxrcWmFjFUCATqMakbFeB8J tt48Ge6Pddiml/QrX8YVYyxWz4x6Vvx846hvGF5iCy4nxUBCb/JeUwbszxavQ9UKjCkd x8Sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530CwmgNRgNW91F/jZa28ZsFL6BBmdgv9AmPSxrowhVVOTEYcMCa UHKdAvM5h2zLqWNe6xKQxs//5y+0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxneJe6NnRVblFfqaLFFULERMlIf88jwd8gxue/gpMDspC002aXdieTTa6dImNZ28wz/3oPag==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f205:: with SMTP id p5mr27604241wro.302.1591094652108; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 03:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOPFLHJVQJ ([]) by with ESMTPSA id p9sm2959562wma.48.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jun 2020 03:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mehmet Ersue" <>
To: "'Jay Daley'" <>, "'ietf'" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: Registration details for IETF 108
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:44:10 +0300
Message-ID: <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIi94OafgxU9aBVwZLcOLw3dFWcqwFCS3JyAaNK0/ACD+GzKAGHmSASAdj5sOwBjzdKYAJWmdxFAc9RR18BWMsPHKewhQdA
Content-Language: de
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:44:16 -0000

> 6.  We did not consult on this because there is not enough time for an effective consultation.  It would probably have been worse to have asked people their views and then said sorry we don’t have enough time to change anything.  

This is ridiculous as a reason. This is not the usual practice at the IETF I know.
We do discuss openly and develop a consensus after understanding the reasons and consequences.
If it is too late and there is no time to discuss the appropriate decision would be to defer such a new rule on fees.
I wonder whether LLC responsibles are indeed capable to manage such an important and international organization.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf <> On Behalf Of Jay Daley
> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 12:27 AM
> To: ietf <>
> Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
> Replying to multiple different things:
> 1.  The decision on registration fees is mainly an LLC one so please send any
> feedback to me.
> 2.  It looks like some people are not aware that we have published a blog
> post explaining how the fee was set:
> 3.  The choice of 100 fee waivers was based on conversations with sponsors
> who want to fund the fee waivers specifically.  It was not chosen on any
> assessment of the potential need.
> 4.  The decision on how to allocate fee waivers is for the IESG not the LLC and
> I will leave it to them to explain their thinking behind a random draw rather
> than "criteria-based case-by-case decision making".
> 5.  This decision was not trailed on May 14 because there was still a lot of
> work to be done on the finances - budgets, sponsorship, insurance, etc - to
> understand *if* we had to charge a fee and what level that should be at, and
> we did not want to delay an announcement until that was complete.  The
> current situation demands that we do a lot of work in a short time and some
> compromises need to be made when deciding what to say when.
> 6.  We did not consult on this because there is not enough time for an
> effective consultation.  It would probably have been worse to have asked
> people their views and then said sorry we don’t have enough time to change
> anything.
> 7.  The policy about what we charge for was set a long time ago - meeting
> registration fees are set to cover more than just the cost of the meeting,
> they also contribute towards the cost of running the IETF in-between
> meetings.  See
> announce/JUByvYCkSb2WDSt9h4lDkaoe9gc/ for one historic mention of that.
> If the community wants that changed then the LLC will build a new budget
> accordingly, but I suggest that is discussed in the context of the overall
> financial structure of the IETF and how that relates to the aspirations of the
> IETF for participation, rather than just in the context of meeting finances.
> While this pandemic feels like it has been with us for a long time, we are still
> working in exceptional circumstances and having to make decisions where
> there is limited consensus community guidance as these are circumstances
> that were only partially foreseen.  If the community wants to pick this up
> then more consensus community guidance around this would be very
> welcome, particularly if it is ready in plenty of time for IETF 109 in case that
> also needs to be switched to an online meeting.
> If there are any questions I’ve missed then please let me know.
> Jay
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director