Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Mary B <> Wed, 10 June 2020 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C9F3A1558; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2QroFaDfYud7; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0393F3A1557; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u13so4079154iol.10; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lg82ffhciR3VlJkj1UmWw3VkWkz9Jr4gAVF5T10vR3U=; b=ZTu/FPf/l/raY1IJrESAooELStb5kJe2czWoAk4W0oUiRzqMPHQqm2U1ZSvWAozjxa g5PH9F9pqCScifZcz2oFNY8UlrEwVUKpiN+emmSOSNNZrqE3NQc/R0CrU+IT/oKKevVc SagoefvU3ZIgJ6c9skfylIk9/fd8HLGi+innYjBeuDfpVKXXj0NHXX0wFsnwVAE7+p5G d+PCjuiAO57aViSOF61U+iJGxfHNzX+xn5C/QRQ19gvtN3eaqewtyPmloQ7zfiHBlDb4 Lq6XMnI/cj/RtP4w4SMVkuw2PD418r02muZCNpftwUKHncDrNLIxDpioaB4DZVffXSqD SGmg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lg82ffhciR3VlJkj1UmWw3VkWkz9Jr4gAVF5T10vR3U=; b=P1FpYZkquKB4EeXn9kKtEVj3j5YqeB1bKPR2o46W0nYlWZdXsqaiVL6yynPgo9gL/7 EB7rQGb96lU7vhfihDrhRLv/fcho5KHE4OmA6jNv1FCCnP481m6HM7D/gNe2Aj4iOgTg A3xI5Cx6yApmJJCepWbltgkC+zAvbfmhgONwMRDqgDHmjnvgTkyS37nq5YbaUU/6I2Ma be1A0L/9KT7cOlbego8IdWU8UNmEKBnzHp+MYutK9wgrZ9YapZhN8+l0fysVvtswA4XV MORmN52Msgz6cHeFj/sFKwYonu3NGU4+JsEbUPrmHDcxyZfxQZoqQTbIA1mQQE4TvVS+ TiWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532RmVuE/OFE3l1jZIzjaHVcDHzz/AzcydeaTDrF76r67FSs2KKl oBlgF1OD/GlL48f+b+T2miacDQ4gKOv53FWJIVg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwyWaPmqmMd1qhWWTFk12Bu0YnpZC6TDHsuvcOv8knNGp2tfdSsgdIMGhzh5MT3CjXKy26E5RWZSuesctPN4ss=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:216f:: with SMTP id p15mr349506jak.86.1591826544271; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <5FCC8656386268B41681E1DE@PSB> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Mary B <>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:02:13 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
To: Alissa Cooper <>
Cc: ietf <>, Ish Sookun <>, "" <>, "Livingood, Jason" <>, "" <>, John C Klensin <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b7286b05a7c1ffd2"
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, 10 Jun 2020 22:02:27 -0000

Is there a deadline for registering and applying for a waiver of the fee?
I didn't see one.  I would assume it's early bird deadline, but again I
don't see that stated anywhere.


On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:50 PM Alissa Cooper <> wrote:

> (Sorry, responding to myself.)
> The other thing I should have said is that we don’t have any good guess on
> the size of the participant population that is price-sensitive at the $230
> reg fee level, since most in-person participants have to pay 2x or 4x the
> registration fee to travel to a meeting, and remote participation at
> in-person meetings is free. Therefore, aside from the survey data, we don’t
> have a great way to estimate the demand for fee waivers, and it may be the
> case that the pool of 100 will be enough to meet the demand, in which case
> we won’t need any selection process.
> Alissa
> On Jun 10, 2020, at 5:09 PM, Alissa Cooper <> wrote:
> For IETF 108 we didn’t have a lot of time to sort this out. Our thinking
> was that any approach aside from random selection needs substantial
> community consultation even if it will only apply to one meeting because it
> implies subjective judgment about whose attendance ought to be subsidized.
> We did not have time to do that before registration details needed to be
> shared with the community.
> There have been many ideas thrown out around this — needs-based
> assessment, priority for retirees or those who are out of work or those
> from developing economies or students or new attendees or WG chairs or
> operators or some other category. Some people like some of these ideas,
> others don’t.. If the fee waiver program is something to be repeated at a
> future meeting we’ll need to have a community conversation about all the
> ideas people come up with.
> Alissa
> On Jun 10, 2020, at 10:43 AM, Mary B <> wrote:
> And, one other thought on the waiver would be that rather than taking the
> random pool approach would be to have a registration option, for those that
> don't have a sponsor or for whom the fee is a financial challenge, and
> allow folks to make a donation when they register.  Some of us have said in
> the past that we'd be willing to pay something and in the end, you might
> get folks donating more than you'd get from one day passes, for example.
> Regards,
> Mary.
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:28 AM Mary B <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:02 AM Livingood, Jason <
>>> wrote:
>>> > This drives home, in quantitative terms, a message that others
>>>     have been trying to deliver: If we have people from developing
>>>     countries who have been participating remotely for some time,
>>>     the effect of these registration fees (at least without the
>>>     waiver lottery) is to exclude their participation and reduce the
>>>     IETF's diversity -- and likely the quality of the standards
>>>     process and the international credibility of our work -- from
>>>     both demographic and perspective standpoints.
>>> I believe this is one of the reasons that the waiver program was created
>>> and encourage anyone in this situation or the others articulated in the
>>> past few days to apply for a waiver.
>> [MB] So, the waiver is a good thing. But, there is a limit on the number
>> and names are chosen randomly as I understand it.  I would think a better
>> approach would be to ensure that those that are in countries where this is
>> a month's wage not be in a random pool.  There are a number of folks that
>> are self-sponsored so the fee is totally out of pocket and not covered by
>> their company, in which case it's the tedious aspect of filling out an
>> expense report versus funds that could be otherwise used by the individual
>> for other business expenses.   I'm in that latter pool and will not apply
>> for a waiver so that folks that come from countries like that are more
>> likely to get the waiver.  So, I really think it should be truly need based
>> (or at least half the pool in that category).  It is worded somewhat
>> that way on the registration form, but the email announcement wasn't as
>> specific.   I know you have some demographics from surveys but I'm guessing
>> probably not enough to really know how many remote attendees might end up
>> in that pool. [/MB]
>>> FWIW, there is an IETF LLC board meeting later this week (feel free to
>>> attend). I have asked for an update at that time during the public part on
>>> the number of IETF-108 registrations as well as the number of waiver
>>> applications.
>>> Jason (with my LLC hat on, but not an official board statement)
>>> --
> Ietf108planning mailing list
> --
> Ietf108planning mailing list