Re: Fees after IETF 108 [Registration details for IETF 108]

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 03 June 2020 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 A28E83A1140 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 dqVpyXQlBoLR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (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 3F8F33A113D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id w7so244329edt.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 17:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=roX1CUFIp3OekUzos8zLG/WYjtLugPO+IJkdA7cbfWw=; b=F4yNyaqSx+8kux6lln6zfbfu+55+1qxRWGUZVjCjId1FanZj7Ba0NXQstU3S7vcXmv 2WYjD2UCKbdHwRSgk+25sTAgytwNkihzY1nbJ0MujxdmXVsCtETGhRGJucxC6pnXlM8+ Ya+t/kE+IwB2sRIZ7AhE2YTTSGQFvyONgCH7xX7+2NUlk0DXz0ECVcK2OxtZH7Brl99L 4tChIgXPU6se7/cQBVeTXeU+IYiGrmPBESNON2AQSdNwJELS8MMW7w5tsaAaHdUlu3TD 3+wZvRLu5dxqI5r1I0aDb16hL0InXmCCtA0dyevmnMwHmG/qwQlY98qeITnEqnEqYHtM Ks9w==
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=roX1CUFIp3OekUzos8zLG/WYjtLugPO+IJkdA7cbfWw=; b=Mo2EtM+yTl8RPZltQQv2ob+M5QsGZ2QzkU3M9ZwPyalbn0XQmu/3qw54XHBPaxwy0i u+enXHqhqnIMnCzdCDobB3KynqdVvrXje5hNKLJWaW047/1T4mofDb43tjq/nwmCxdiu ju4/jsgWRaFDDgT0LU2ila98bKXtisK2vxdK7Oab48GUV6zugxDb84WSWiKz2bij7Uyf zVYzJP6I/LOM0V1O53moLtA7LRPFUenoLH5oXvHCKhrOuaKhXkGxdazfuS5N0qSgqvWO tbVmy7FO9IaiQj1VgemekC4CcD/suEO1KKuk3TlTVYZ7zU1SCNpTpggO7hr3oF9mFANI mo/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532AeRcYYcMEVcUBoEujqdrlEEpQWD5ubdhj7QW1/e/iil12Ix1T iQVXbfHzTZh55IjozvWLUsSvFk4qcGTXj/KZ465v88IR
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzyOmeu1JTlXaUBL8yXqVhmG4uHHU4LYn4Hxcnr9qnkq8jk4gkWO7qwYeeHkb1mG8xI6LMw8lSmqmBPcq9Aggk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:129a:: with SMTP id w26mr29701617edv.41.1591142557686; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 17:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <9F71F116-D7B2-4ECE-9000-957A0C497404@ietf.org> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$@gmail.com> <CABcZeBOLAw_9s-gobFYB=5THu_Q70UmDLn_ZhVXhNRHN_nu_0w@mail.gmail.com> <607b7682-0a75-62b6-fd0e-5e2e1171a68b@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMBEqhn115ToB0SwOGavmXze4DdJdL941J4LeVMRrPngpQ@mail.gmail.com> <e1b804ae-4c2e-fdf3-8804-47820d35facf@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMC8ZWHaCBg=WzwtriVf-3bq=egupVgAH-J7dSqspwLoFw@mail.gmail.com> <a19c3066-bfa7-ded2-d98f-b5e367645451@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMDrsRoCPFyzU7HJWoFqgg3jQ4rszQvNRMzUAAhVwn=k0w@mail.gmail.com> <583a2e86-260a-4156-2a72-dd21e789cf97@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMD+7CLeTQ2npmWeeu58A94a5DBAzfm+SVUCgn8fwxh0pQ@mail.gmail.com> <35a9b588-f8a5-89c8-8801-e3cd80d11d58@gmail.com> <7b865305-b307-9834-5467-d27835e1b5b6@gmail.com> <58619861-b7bb-03fd-6bfb-ef901a6cda19@joelhalpern.com> <CAOj+MMG7TAW4sQpLgOWR=dRPdwo7sX02-4yX=pBnLkfMFxBx3Q@mail.gmail.com> <34c90a6f-73c4-c4d9-a683-89942ada9b9d@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <34c90a6f-73c4-c4d9-a683-89942ada9b9d@joelhalpern.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 02:02:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMH0vnqh1W=gNWjaUAv8EyvAi-GSzC9QviNbdr7E5Y_FPw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fees after IETF 108 [Registration details for IETF 108]
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f0337005a722bedf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dvSY7_hoZqdCLbXoBiwaCXr8hR4>
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: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 00:02:42 -0000

So I am struggling with just one question here ...

What is the practical difference for standards development of formal IETF
WG meeting with fee vs a WG interim meeting with no fee using zoom or
google meet ?

Kind regards,
Robert.


On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:58 AM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> I'm pretty sure that many folks would expect a decision to change the
> date of the meeting drastically would itself require rough consensus.
> So we would ahve the same debate about that.  And about ....
>
> Yes, the long term policy needs to be set by the community.  The IESG
> has been trying to start those discussions.  Whether they have been
> trying hard enough is a topic I presume we can disagree about.  I
> commented to someone privately earlier in this discussion that I
> expected it would take at least 6 months to arrive at a rough consensus
> on policies for these issues.  At taht, i expect I am being optimistic.
> Process and policy discussions in the IETF tend to bifurcate into two
> strong positions and a lot of folks staring in confusion.  Which does
> not lead to decisions.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 6/2/2020 7:50 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> >  > I do not see how the LLC could reasonably have asked for input for
> this
> >  > meeting in time to be useful.
> >
> > And would the world collapse if we would push IETF 108 a month or two
> > forward ? What's up with the rush ?
> >
> > Charging for remote participation flat fee IMO is a very bad move. If
> > someone like to attend just one meeting online why would she or he be
> > forced to pay the same as someone attending 20 meetings ?
> >
> > All it will result with is further limiting participation and only
> > supporting marketing focused groups to join. Do we really want IETF to
> > be a yet one more marketing venue ?
> >
> > Rgs,
> > R.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:26 AM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com
> > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     I assume that the to determine the long term policy on charging for
> >     remote participation at various kinds of meetings, rough consensus
> >     would
> >     be gathered on the SHMO list, and then confirmed on the IETF list
> with
> >     the IETF Chair judging rough consensus.  Then, in line with Jay's
> >     frequent description of the LLC operation, the LLC will follow the
> >     community guidance.
> >
> >     I do not see how the LLC could reasonably have asked for input for
> this
> >     meeting in time to be useful.  As someone else mentioned, asking for
> >     input and then saying "sorry, we know the discussion is still going
> on
> >     but we have to act" would probably have been even worse.
> >
> >     Yours,
> >     Joel
> >
> >     On 6/2/2020 7:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >      > Another point. Ted wrote:
> >      >
> >      >> I think the LLC can call consensus on a matter within their
> >     remit (just as
> >      >> the IAOC evaluated the feedback on the registration date change
> >     policy that
> >      >> I referenced many messages ago)
> >      >
> >      > The IAOC was a community-appointed body. The IETF ExecD is not.
> >     When it comes to evaluating community consensus, that's a big
> >     difference of principle.
> >      >
> >      > Regards
> >      >     Brian
> >      >
> >      > On 03-Jun-20 10:56, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >      >> On 03-Jun-20 10:11, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >      >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:56 PM Stephen Farrell
> >     <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> >     <mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
> >     <mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>>> wrote:
> >      >>>
> >      >>>
> >      >>>
> >      >>>      On 02/06/2020 22:41, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >      >>>      > And you are convincing me that attempting to settle it
> >     on the IETF list
> >      >>>      > will require somebody to judge consensus, since there
> >     look to be a minimum
> >      >>>      > of two people with the time and keyboards available to
> >     disagree.  We
> >      >>>      > apparently, however, disagree on who that should be.
> >      >>>
> >      >>>      Perhaps not! If you do agree that consensus calling is
> >      >>>      required that seems to imply the LLC is not the one to
> >      >>>      do that. We have a bunch of 14 victims already setup
> >      >>>      to do just that:-)
> >      >>>
> >      >>>
> >      >>> I think the LLC can call consensus on a matter within their
> >     remit (just as the IAOC evaluated the feedback on the registration
> >     date change policy that I referenced many messages ago).  So, I
> >     think they are the victims set up to do that in this case.
> >      >>
> >      >> It's a change to the openness of the standards process,
> >     unprecedented since we first started multicasting the audio for free
> >     back in the early 1990s. BCP101 defines the LLC's scope:
> >      >>
> >      >> "The IETF LLC is established to provide administrative support
> >     to the IETF. It has no authority over the standards development
> >     activities of the IETF."
> >      >>
> >      >> There's no doubt that the IETF Executive Director *sets* the
> >     fees, but IMHO that isn't the point at issue. In this text:
> >      >> "The IETF Executive Director sets those meeting fees, in
> >     consultation with other IETF LLC staff and the IETF community, with
> >     approval by the IETF LLC Board."
> >      >> I don't see any indication of how the ExecD knows the result of
> >     consulting the community when there is disagreement. The mechanism
> >     we have for that is the IESG determining the rough consensus. I can
> >     see nothing in BCP101 that gives the ExecD the power to determine
> IETF
> >      >> consensus, although it does require the LLC to respect IETF
> >     consensus. Those are two different things.
> >      >>
> >      >> Maybe this is a tiny gap in RFC8711, where Ted and (Stephen + I)
> >     have different interpretations.
> >      >>
> >      >> Regards
> >      >>     Brian
> >      >>
> >      >>> Since you referenced the magic number 14, I conclude we still
> >     disagree.
> >      >>>
> >      >>> I think we do agree that there should be public discussion.  I
> >     think we do agree that the LLC and IESG should talk to each other
> >     about the implications of different strategies to both the ongoing
> >     work of the IETF and its financial future.  I think we do agree that
> >     any conclusion would be revisited in the light of evidence of how it
> >     ends up working.
> >      >>>
> >      >>> But our disagreement on on who the stuckee is remains.
> >      >>>
> >      >>> regards,
> >      >>>
> >      >>> Ted
> >      >>>
> >      >>>
> >      >>>      Cheers,
> >      >>>      S.
> >      >>>
> >      >>
> >      >
> >
>