Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Registration open for IETF 114)

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Sat, 14 May 2022 05:07 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 E212CC2B6E97 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2022 22:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.857, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Um0QWCdIm2G for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2022 22:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEA39C2B6E8F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2022 22:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652685C0110 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 May 2022 01:07:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 14 May 2022 01:07:43 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1652504863; x= 1652591263; bh=0vPmOv7R1LkbpQ3yfcct4hTB4V6xLTBDeYmEy4EIphY=; b=J y2+NgxEWEV7FRlpDTd3cmNyZ5AxWFvLyB569T1D2FzQtYEiaI9uU9jybadVpMMxm Aj+WBVU7O66WYomCaefIc/V06X1FihlgJnWwLALoNiSLse6V05grWNxtAWmMIpnp fd2on96/uWEz1GY91ggN+lDAiQsRmApCL3BG/oVvnRVTj6FNlrYcOE0AJNP/OGT4 MrjAwcBkvZbJt8dTg3JQAay/RgzdNLGkQlfqYHtJ+GtiYGYcusyriBGPy2fW3Ssk aLUf4o3gIVJJowvVARSzf3ve6y2X2vsl2q5fijWWe+sgCEdS+4O2tsdCIIUvNy/P T2zI63DILFjEtiyHx2D8w==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Hzl_YnzhSRuVvsC1s493mS_1kOV3QJrN4AcgzN0GUElOGstVa9v7ww> <xme:Hzl_YvSFUK3GzhigPFBConKQCbcgwjJ6moOe6XaNUHHG3fsvTfeOPwvCJsxM3jtjP 6Uel6agjsL1OA>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:Hzl_YhWZ8i8CSatM2afaJNORx26PHzu7PcPYsxc0fzx8jrh0mQzGFDNNwUZS8lxX1j8BAJey9f8QrJFbZaHu1z5tUYQhFiOOjgdoIafHkmMsXyFnbLtWQw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrhedtgdeklecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurheptgfkffggfgfuvfhfhfgjsegrtderre dtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhr khdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehfeduvdeggfefve eiiefggeeludefjeduieetledugeefffelffevieffkeeiffenucevlhhushhtvghrufhi iigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqd hhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:Hzl_Yhh4E_pTVoh9uBxhRQXDNDPwKuYt14bnOEOHye5LVejP8kkEnw> <xmx:Hzl_YpB2k7q_9L6AyrnNxErOfga0zxFCnLXlXwFD3-axio0xTM1khg> <xmx:Hzl_YqJ39Zq4Hf4OjUuOdFYmwA2MAkuAAbIVTXNBeczV1X2tWg35Ow> <xmx:Hzl_YsN_zo5FgwOgbQRrkuiMTl8MV0gfgFuaNQUFU-1-uTV6vi07Ng>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 May 2022 01:07:43 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------DpVVUGuUN20HyXTY6e8GuoBI"
Message-ID: <0313d0f9-4f81-b580-e303-9956748ffacd@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 01:07:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Registration open for IETF 114)
Content-Language: en-US
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20220510030716.1A4EF3FB1AB6@ary.qy> <da09ca47-110f-269c-8140-ea7b6dfc120c@network-heretics.com> <CAKr6gn1D5WTzCdOktT1+=A+_S440TtrgFniqrLdfjiCZsBC9KA@mail.gmail.com> <2EB6CA87-A5AE-4C06-9891-7AA02E8627A9@gmail.com> <5A341380-5797-4D93-B4CF-D36A119E3F67@ietf.org> <c7ddcc5e-cf1b-3154-e316-6fedead8983a@gmail.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <c7ddcc5e-cf1b-3154-e316-6fedead8983a@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/f6qXAO6N3RrPnmIjSW0n7TfosVY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Sat, 14 May 2022 05:07:52 -0000

On 5/13/22 21:56, Michael Douglass wrote:

> So I think there's no doubt about the exclusionary nature of in-person 
> meetings. The question is what if anything is to be done?

The first step is for IETF and associated organizations to make 
facilitating /truly broad participation/ in the development of Internet 
protocol standards as its primary mission, or at least a significant 
part of its primary mission.

...so that the evolution of the Internet will be influenced by a wide 
variety of interests and perspectives, and also so that future 
generations of Internet protocol developers, maintainers, and 
implementors will benefit from many different perspectives.

IETF SHOULD NOT see its job as only facilitating continued participation 
by groups who are currently active in Internet standards development.  
It SHOULD NOT measure its effectiveness only, or even primarily, by 
feedback from its existing participant population.

(The idea of "the meeting fees don't matter because everyone's already 
spending a lot of money on transportation and lodging anyway" is a good 
example of the latter kind of thinking, because it implicitly assumes a 
certain kind of participant who either has their IETF participation 
fully funded, or who is wealthy enough that their IETF meeting expense 
is not a significant issue for them, and ignores the concerns of other 
kinds of participants.)

Keith