Re: Registration details for IETF 108

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 03 June 2020 12:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7773A1090 for <>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 05:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xF9eSKYdxkcn for <>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 05:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E92A43A108E for <>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 05:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 053CTwF9027149 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Jun 2020 05:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1591187410; x=1591273810;; bh=le/dV5hszL2HdRfdcN6UwT5qJZNOxcir39B6XiAD3FM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=jqKvmfRrJzPCMSgIfC06dqQMLErd0jOGXlOWyhuazlQ98IaMNU8qvaNmDND/YPhGz 8PSjj2f43fHkDe6cIh3tdAVC+OsA1IXXoSj3r04GlYiQhztKsycaOD9tQghUGZIG7G t0kCgF/MueTiEsOE2gXlLRvoEW/wM8fInL6EwGT0=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 05:29:39 -0700
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 12:30:32 -0000

Hi Jordi,
At 12:13 PM 01-06-2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>Exactly. As I mention in my previous email, this is not really about 
>"this" meeting, it is about next meetings (in person and online, 
>with and without Covid19), it is about how to cover *all* our expenses.
>It is unfair that people that contributes more, pay traveling 
>expenses and attendance fees, and may have similar problems to cover 
>all that cost as people that is participating remotely, which only 
>will need to pay for a registration fee.
>How we compensate all the people that have attended meetings for 
>tens of years? In my own case my first meeting was summer 2001, and 
>I never missed one, so I've contributed with about 34.000 USD (just 
>in attendance fees!). For an individual or an SME, this is not the 
>same as for a participant that works for a medium or big size 
>organization, that is covering all the expenses for him/her.

Revenue from IETF attendees is less than 50% of the IETF revenue.  I 
was a bit surprised by the numbers as I made some assumptions based 
on past IETF discussions.  I don't have an answer to your question.

>So, this is a discussion about IETF budged in general. It is about 
>what the PIR/.org was

The above is the controversial topic which was avoided over the past 
six months.

Getting back to the topic, it usually turns into big/small 
organizations and individuals.     One of these days someone may come 
up with an acceptable solution.  There were two (more) interesting 
messages within the discussion, one from Ole and the other from you.

S. Moonesamy