Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 02 June 2020 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B73F63A0C56 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 09:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id igwcPHxItke5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 09:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-f181.google.com (mail-oi1-f181.google.com [209.85.167.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 281F13A0C52 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 09:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-f181.google.com with SMTP id p70so7825676oic.12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TxbKkvkXl1uEs7ZIPAgzuVolVWkpz4u1qFIZi+bDt+w=; b=Uq0s+C4n3FQ1GY9tx4tOiMFjZ+WPBKFmZm1wY+94/lTbxIrm6DoaTbeeb54BxGJ8C4 JI3SFbjb+dshhsw4HmhcOJN9sxXBPmyHUk3N3wB+TEb/zUKvDGlBQ2FruSDqzaJilRcT 7g2ZOSyGLe6xYQhfI416ofa5uubeF66C/IhgRNZ3Paif83zUK9hQIk7bJK/SFw/8UtZj 8zVOkZiVUDKsmjo6hfeA22B8Jcf3XNhYRY+a2Yh8quo95PSQU39oVumxERCSlNWBiLPZ xLp3X3AbIjOjWylwYbN33tbDNwJHq4TqtamNcC+/YmMoNXzCZ6uW67zWkBHV409uTx3/ 5MNg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532gVo8Zx10+ioopydr3uVpS8bcbWyoUMd4rLlypyF53+mYDoBxK z/PajoIjecOLVOeWIJsGrSNAWdC2aDgeqsS7Kb8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwWKKHpHOI3LDevedf+z5bt9qr7T4wnSuKh6svT20IMgQRVH6tGfwtcmmrCbkZmx6iC7EtquPmYYOY8iU2sqiA=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:a8c3:: with SMTP id r186mr3462474oie.173.1591114305011; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <9F71F116-D7B2-4ECE-9000-957A0C497404@ietf.org> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$@gmail.com> <CABcZeBOLAw_9s-gobFYB=5THu_Q70UmDLn_ZhVXhNRHN_nu_0w@mail.gmail.com> <rb5qpf$2aq4$1@gal.iecc.com>
In-Reply-To: <rb5qpf$2aq4$1@gal.iecc.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:11:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwi7ENUj1RHq+ogMhfxgMPKW7=i_w3oqAsXW9rGp_R4-fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f283c505a71c2a9b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/aK7QGxDUEGKdRpalGIeIcewY7LI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 16:11:48 -0000

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 11:22 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> In article <CABcZeBOLAw_9s-gobFYB=
> 5THu_Q70UmDLn_ZhVXhNRHN_nu_0w@mail.gmail.com>gt;,
> Eric Rescorla  <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> >This seems like entirely appropriate practice on short notice. I would
> note
> >that the LLC regularly makes decisions which involve a far larger change
> to
> >people's costs than the fees -- namely, where to site the meeting --
> >without consultation, so I while I think it would be good for the LLC to
> >get feedback on this topic, I don't think there's inherently an obligation
> >to put it to a community wide call for consensus.
>
> Agreed. The IETF works within financial constraints, and a large part
> of the LLC's job is to balance what we want to do with the resources
> we have. Unilaterally making 108 free for everyone would blow a large
> hole in our budget (there are still expenses even without a physical
> meeting) and we can't just decree it.
>

Had ISOC been allowed to dispose of the PIR without the political meddling,
it would of course have been able to do exactly that, and could have been
expected to.

But it wasn't and while it probably still could we can't expect that it
should. Which means that because some folk decided to fund raise off the
risk that the minority of non profits holding .org names might end up
paying one or two dollars a year extra, the one non-profit the PIR is
actually supposed to fund now continues to face a massive concentrated
position in its portfolio.