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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 03 June 2020 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 5A51D3A1145 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:09:10 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 zrGcVavpGYZR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 127D53A1144 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49c8Qq6d4gz1p4TP; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1591142947; bh=ohPqMGXUqHybAyX9Xo9QKsE7F8jU/v/BNOCPSQXjKX0=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=cveI9sRawbRgN3GNzlPsm4lLrclU4sdv4qv/zaBNbx0CBZeiST3hyzSm3Y8oyu+Ak J73rvt0TjYZFH7EYhIp532Jo7xHOgvQZPrYb9RkUoATLcPEmgdZuV0EYnLHtIS+nuy g9DtLqGEIpQIvOlHuafjh3Yan9zp5NOkbwycTUUI=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49c8Qq2p2pz1p52k; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Fees after IETF 108 [Registration details for IETF 108]
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <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> <CAOj+MMG7TAW4sQpLgOWR=dRPdwo7sX02-4yX=pBnLkfMFxBx3Q@mail.gmail.com> <34c90a6f-73c4-c4d9-a683-89942ada9b9d@joelhalpern.com> <CAOj+MMH0vnqh1W=gNWjaUAv8EyvAi-GSzC9QviNbdr7E5Y_FPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <4e31c596-1acc-7e96-166b-a225316aea39@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:09:06 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMH0vnqh1W=gNWjaUAv8EyvAi-GSzC9QviNbdr7E5Y_FPw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mADurY_muF5Kav4El6ch81zUxDU>
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: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 00:09:10 -0000

If that is your only question, you are doing better than I.  I can see a 
myriad questions that we are going to need to answer.  Some of them 
urgent, some not.
I suspect that the key to the answer to the question you chose lies in 
how we end up treating them.  But that is just a guess.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/2/2020 8:02 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> 
> So I am struggling with just one question here ...
> 
> What is the practical difference for standards development of formal 
> IETF WG meeting with fee vs a WG interim meeting with no fee using zoom 
> or google meet ?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Robert.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:58 AM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com 
> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
> 
>     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
>     <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>      > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto: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>
>     <mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>>
>      >     <mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
>     <mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
>      >     <mailto: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.
>      >      >>>
>      >      >>
>      >      >
>      >
>