Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Suresh Krishnan <> Mon, 01 June 2020 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CCAD3A0FFE for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 05:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.125
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.125 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uvcMxHUCXHAY for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 05:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 279DF3A0FFC for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 05:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id er17so1627094qvb.8 for <>; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 05:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=voaJRnnZSN2HoMqA/RNxQmkQtJPcx4ejwsa3HvVC0Ug=; b=MQbnq8P47Ny9v5WnjSeRgZ2Zs9c8lwEGvoE1kgmPR3jn/c1T4DdeJLAxxQGVTZzuyv aCenHRj0qVpP1vwXqVtve3/UnfMoST+lSOz2I/0Ie3fDfUlLlSVSuerhn3hRFzMzdHHT SqWY4MT8DExBwzzUHMZDSLbipRTMYcfcjb1Wsh5ekbZmUaPB88IkFck/PK08yApY6Sfp xZchiQvL8cPDaIy5uNq0uu/jpUPg8MYnFiuZbACy61QxU7SLnVYjx78TphXyKYL/ID5U RAbw5pQOgRBZHQHw5j+GLorI4iGQWN6V6HDSJ3HqHaqEtPLx0Lh6rVNwFZaIsBd2KBL0 dpyQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=voaJRnnZSN2HoMqA/RNxQmkQtJPcx4ejwsa3HvVC0Ug=; b=rLAVNhXJg9rJZrfwO1jIwIXPh4qcnzNsL5lDlYOQOgGtQlod0/cXYINHYv1BkSwj/4 NkkQAc8CC9xj5GIFBzl10I52LYO/XR9ma/6q6OwZPYNt7ov0CwjadfAlgR7/6CZRDBsW nStflN3Ntq3m7oii1kDyM7YBREvl+AD3PIdUh3Kf/XniHMoA9g4KcmZP9Ow7st4Hd5P4 3ZRfy8J948pih0c2Kl/UmyITZbwRRH5YYJ/HIQt3SYdup+H0/sDKhcxqOGF+t7ZhVY6C x+NEUultQafUnBp1cjWR+P1+xpS8pnXViM+oXKsosUqulIRxLmHSscdvU2Ob7NK4Co2g yBaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ttRuU2zW9/IsR9czOOzOux6tcnWbRRGfE21s+vuxXXqva0nL7 FV9Dfj8je3OxTGPQqrO8kL+oIdYP
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyxjUdAZNbnD8iv5zOofHzsyoc8VcqmedpFJuIR4w5+hIzqwZwhkX6fKHgLn9kCqjUAe42enQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:852:: with SMTP id dg18mr153399qvb.97.1591015120013; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 05:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v53sm15199745qtv.10.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Jun 2020 05:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
From: Suresh Krishnan <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 08:38:38 -0400
Cc: S Moonesamy <>, IETF discussion list <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 12:38:43 -0000

+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.


> On May 31, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern <> 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 < <>> 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.