Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Jay Daley <> Thu, 11 June 2020 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A127F3A163A; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WrO-j6LH0-Xw; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro.localdomain (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 404E73A0D7A; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F5C6B9EA-786C-42D9-ACA1-7741D224576A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:21:09 +1200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Colin Perkins <>, John C Klensin <>, Alissa Cooper <>, ietf <>, "" <>, "" <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
References: <> <> <> <5FCC8656386268B41681E1DE@PSB> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:21:16 -0000

> On 11/06/2020, at 12:50 PM, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 11/06/2020 01:20, Colin Perkins wrote:
>> I tend to view the fee as a reduced rate on the in-person IETF 
>> meeting fee, since the meeting has to happen in a different format 
>> due to the pandemic.
> That is reasonable. It is equally reasonable to regard this
> as an increase from zero to non-zero. That is why we need
> a community debate, before, and not afterwards.

As well as stating that you see this a switch from a zero to non-zero fee, I think you’ve also stated that such a switch can only be made with community consensus.  Given that you and some others firmly oppose this switch it would seem that community consensus could not be achieved within the necessary timeframe to make such as switch for IETF 108, if at all, no matter what process was used to try to find consensus.  That would then mean that if your initial premise is accepted, IETF 108 would have to have a zero fee for all, no choice in the matter.

Do you agree with that so far or is there a way, hypothetical of course, that you could see the switch happening in the face of some determined opposition?

Starting from the same uncontentious statement that "in-person meetings have a non-zero fee for in-person participation while remote-only participation has a zero fee", the alternative view is that moving to a fully online meeting does not simply delete the first clause of that statement to leave only the second clause and so conclude that as everyone is now remote-only, everyone should have a zero fee.  To put it another way, the alternative view says that there is no community consensus that tells us what to do with that statement in the event of moving to a fully online meeting.  

Again, a check-in - are we still on the same page in describing this alternative view so far?

The next stage to the alternative view, is to interpret that uncontentious statement in the context of a fully online meeting as saying "there is a fee to participate in a meeting, with a mechanism for those that cannot afford it to still participate".  If one accepts that interpretation, as the IESG and LLC do, then it is possible to discuss what that fee should be, what the mechanism should be for supporting those who cannot afford it, etc.  

Having said that, there are other interpretations out there, such as "there is a non-zero fee for fully featured participation, while reduced feature participation has a zero fee’.  While I don’t agree with that as an interpretation, it also allows for a debate on various aspects of the overall construct.

A final question for you - if the IESG/LLC had had the time to open up a debate/discussion on this and the IESG/LLC had gone ahead with this despite your opposition, would we be anywhere different from where we are now?


Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director