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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 02 June 2020 23:50 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 9A3C03A1129 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:50:51 -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 mdgA2meJOvBo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:50:49 -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 55EDF3A1128 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id o26so233561edq.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 16:50:49 -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=0Pihz+Ep9lYxzJpapBZDyLX0c6w0d/wH0zafOQqnNvQ=; b=dJdWlqCvjmZ4UhTWAxKtIHZms79C9J2PMfx6y2StrrTnoruHHlq5B2U2T73iWUGMC1 I2gM1cBLC074Lkl7dYI7IwLYXfxcvXTPZxCch1TU4vmW4Ah5B0tDG78gfwlQX3Tup1iH 1D0nVx/12bI/3LFvXgDyQfu0I78xUMQiOBZZGSSPTrRKT4SbvDeZ0ODWr8w6u0JmoGDD PBS2Fj3JcHhP9dHeiU/VH6OlmVTsUvIjuPs002x+g3Bvb4vSd8M/rM51oM2Ccs6zEaqJ 2vWth0q+gWp4QMTeUJot9Kb+PMpoZdBjmXjB10IgRIWSvo6e0BqsNmYJKvmpJzEUSCYF /hHg==
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=0Pihz+Ep9lYxzJpapBZDyLX0c6w0d/wH0zafOQqnNvQ=; b=GbSgWGB3zxh5HPKzKv6yflrpjme/KUp2UpWf+9J1gkVQHDv1BOmf3zD3XMfnrGfJ7w mc9RbEdS35Wa5Yz6W3JxzdlM8cALcf8dM+jczQRU3Gf2sUMCNENnDEOf04izt9xLONlO QusBM3GCEgv48GAZMukTBDUXbwGv/TElUb6e9CXKnUqzrWc5Ej4JQPeqODuDBpblFGU1 vwA9FHWMUx6lM7TWOlX9M0m0TpkJ+Y0j51hmBEW0x00wCfDkB4gDaWqdvoJ7fJNFtD52 wzVwnJxTMPqbhJ2rCO1QsJp8gJPxwJZsiCRR4wD+kPBDMDk/OFEub8JrUSWy7i8m5MQt wh2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533NvWWj/aBjslEyFcZYAqxnsnlvMxKVs2cCQHieu2B9jUVKn09Y 2DUzd0wevyMHHShEZWVPU7V0VBfKyVmZan3LFJsmebeWMko=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxg8GzTMdj9gADRxQuAt4Zb2L07eKCs3qzfa6duSBSpS5xVy0ZrlHljU1xlZ4lmHYzH8N4bmODr8FJV83CABf0=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d2d6:: with SMTP id k22mr12184667edr.109.1591141837788; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 16:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <616FD1DE-C25F-44CE-9FA3-CC00943FC98B@cable.comcast.com> <A9DBD8B0-01B3-4C68-91B3-BD1E99E226BA@gmail.com> <70d1493c-4c00-f32e-8996-72d0a8369571@comcast.net> <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>
In-Reply-To: <58619861-b7bb-03fd-6bfb-ef901a6cda19@joelhalpern.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 01:50:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMG7TAW4sQpLgOWR=dRPdwo7sX02-4yX=pBnLkfMFxBx3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fees after IETF 108 [Registration details for IETF 108]
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000076fd805a722942a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/f4r5up0plyYlOKaxVKo8BfGkJ94>
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 23:50:52 -0000

> 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> 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>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>