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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>> 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.
>      >>>
>      >>
>      >
>