Re: Registration details for IETF 108

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

+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.

Regards
Suresh

> On May 31, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.
>