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

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

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