Re: Planned changes to registration payments & deadlines

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Front posting to say I agree with John that side meetings
may (or may not) be problematic in themselves.

Regards
   Brian

On 27/04/2018 01:03, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, April 26, 2018 15:57 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> Let me just adjust your text to make it more precise:
>>
>> "If you could register for ancillary things without having
>> *paid* for the meeting, then if you never *pay* we'd need to
>> have tracked those other things and be able to undo them."
>>
>> Correct, and I fully understand that. But a side effect of the
>> change is that anybody currently using the registration system
>> as a convenience for arranging a side event can effectively no
>> longer do so until the 7 week deadline, because people *will*
>> pay at the last possible moment to minimise their credit hit.
>> And people who don't make the 7 week deadline will then delay
>> until the 2 week deadline. So the side event organiser won't
>> get attendance mainly settled until the last 2 weeks. They will
>> see two large spikes in registration corresponding to the two
>> payment deadlines. (So will IASA, of course.)
>>
>> I'm not saying that's a disaster. But it is a change not
>> mentioned in your initial posting.
> 
> Remembering that we used to go to considerable lengths to
> prohibit or inhibit "side events" as a distraction from the
> IETF's work and that many of the "side events" that occur today
> cause at least some work for the Secretariat and increase the
> demands we place on facilities, let me make a counterproposal.
> This is made more to try to bring the issues that are being
> raised into focus than as a real proposal but, if the IAOC
> wanted to consider it, I wouldn't lose any sleep over the idea.
> 
> We redefine things so that there are two kinds of side events.
> Type 2 is the "old" variety: no use of IETF facilities, even
> announcements on bulletin boards, no coordination with the
> Secretariat, use of the meeting hotel (or venue if different)
> strongly discouraged or, if it occurs, forcing event organizers
> to make their own arrangements with the venue with no allowances
> for adjustments for co-location with the IETF.  What the IETF
> does about registration has no effect on this type of event
> because there just is no interaction.
> 
> Type 1 involves the kind of coordination that I infer from
> Brian's message but anyone applying to set up such a side
> meeting, asking the Secretariat for room or scheduling
> assistance, or wanting to make arrangements with a venue or
> hotel on the coattails of IETF contracts initiates those actions
> with an application to IAOC or AMS that is accompanied by a fee
> of several times the "standards" registration fee. A few "side
> event" applications at 5 or 10K USD each in addition to
> registration fees for those attending would, presumably, justify
> the costs of giving out preliminary registration numbers to
> people making notices of intent to attend.  If the IAOC wer4 to
> make a nominal charge for such notices (as a deposit to be
> credited against the registration fee when paid), it might also
> help... and, in combination with the rest, have a noticeable
> benefit to the bottom line.
> 
> Again, mostly just a thought to clarify the issues and one that
> should probably come with a disclaimer than I've never liked the
> idea of side meetings (or highly organized pseudo-BOFs or
> pseudo-bar-BOFs that require space but don't go through the
> normal review, approval, and agenda processes and the
> expectation of minutes) so I'd consider making them harder a
> benefit.  But, if we are going to complain (or even notice) that
> changes in registration models inconvenience side meetings or
> their organizers, we should also be considering the incremental
> costs of such meetings and probably discussing how to recover
> those costs (and whether it makes sense to make money on them).
> 
> best,
>    john
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
>