Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

[Mary B <[e-mail]>]

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.

Regards,
Mary.

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:50 PM Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:02 AM Livingood, Jason <
>> [e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning
>
>
> --
> Ietf108planning mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning
>
>
>