Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Alissa Cooper <> Mon, 01 June 2020 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41EF3A0B1C for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 19:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.125
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.125 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.973, 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=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=JoX8qMK2; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=mLro/3Jx
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EcEMy-IHvaqI for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 19:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86F1E3A0B24 for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 19:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C808B5C00A4; Sun, 31 May 2020 22:56:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 31 May 2020 22:56:58 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=G 7IPdM2uVei90hY0qaDm8Xvg8glop+F3z1Cj885b+QY=; b=JoX8qMK2Rh5J1Wrrf UZU2b361xy8IHpsjGs687i1F7iUlLdpgQo9ZI/3W1PtODFc8qzbX3geHiS0BgpYf xP74CFBWMy+rWoLVhnuHjYlc5ow1xJ+a4MvAKxaFvaz6tWnLFi+LOA+ZHG12uGKH mPTk2IWb07xCgbiJaBCSHi58VCS22mEc74pCUsOiz6XCxCBEI4aQJVj/hhOgpRjU foohNOW5QQFc5ce4YqsfVjBuPEqM8+AZ+09xomneYPmaYmPbfQ3T0FNsMc8Tg04J kc55cqkjNFBG+mGmMLaC6lOnxLoDRtksFTgjvCi/rFnPecUoZRnlhCvaKmVZwYIb TFUGA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=G7IPdM2uVei90hY0qaDm8Xvg8glop+F3z1Cj885b+ QY=; b=mLro/3JxcTMk11TLQWA3LmZvRI/xdY8mxx20Dj5d6UIjXFrZxw3Y3+gEs XOqqFYr63Dp6ngvlUZj6lyAdPnTdwBStQlL9O1phAcnW+47UeF4+jT/USiQslzdg j1m+6YQCNV4k2XTwMLwMJ/L4/iDVtYxPXxw0wHwZ6acw8I3TIWX5rE4YVLSzD6E0 impoV+e/p6+XinU8NNcTzxoySydEDMsodzkO8CrTV0/omidGm+u5cAWgEn6iE432 mz7li95sxzqIfhuFeRI+jlR77rXFqIsOWk7pspGiVlWagcxJM2PWyq76k515JHKV a9AcF6OxyixwD15HK2J1q3oMthOXQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:em7UXg3Kb6sDo-jF45Twe1wC0MxqL70A2ACRcSf9d_NT6E2Y2baOQA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudefgedgieduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqh hmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhsrgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegt ohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepjeefieelieeivddugeehudeiud fghffhjeejvdfftddvtddvieekudfhueduueeinecukfhppedujeefrdefkedruddujedr ledtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprg hlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:em7UXrHREkDcvEd76m7I3srp1kLVWezowEnaR5AE0czl0j8dSXELQQ> <xmx:em7UXo6m9PSKt9M8mnzqU5xJw8bmLRaUXNP6N27SFNsgtV_yw-b6JQ> <xmx:em7UXp3qmQ3zziXdSIBQr12SBeJRvlMocd4cRGTkZlq9hoRv3LahPw> <xmx:em7UXnSJGFtdjasjKC2DrigK48fIFgnU5d4UpWr85o--ktnO-1siaA>
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 46D9D30618B7; Sun, 31 May 2020 22:56:58 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.5\))
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
From: Alissa Cooper <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 22:56:57 -0400
Cc: IETF <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: S Moonesamy <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.5)
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 02:57:01 -0000


> On May 31, 2020, at 4:54 PM, S Moonesamy <> wrote:
> Dear Internet Engineering Steering Group,
> [Reply-To override]
> At 06:12 PM 27-05-2020, IETF Executive Director wrote:
>> This meeting will have a substantial agenda but as the cost of an online meeting is lower, the registration fees have been set at approximately one-third of those for an in-person meeting.  A detailed explanation of why we charge a fee for meetings and how the fee reduction was set for IETF 108 is provided in a separate blog post [3].
> In 2013, the IETF Chair affirmed that the Internet Engineering Task Force embraced the modern paradigm for standards.  One of the points in the document is the standards process being open to all interested and informed parties.  If I recall correctly, I raised a point a few months before 2013 about the IETF allowing free access to its meetings through the Internet.  I could not help noticing that there is now a required fee to access the next IETF meeting.  Was that approved by the IESG?

The IESG does not approve meeting fees. In this case, the IESG discussed the proposed fee structure and suggested imrpovements. As a body I would say we are supportive of it, but not every IESG member is happy with it.

> I took a look at the meeting policy for the IETF.  I never understood why that policy is described as an ambition.  Anyway, as that policy does not specify anything about changing the existing practice for fees, it is unlikely that the decision to charge for online meetings can be challenged.
> I would like to thank the IETF LLC Directors for acknowledging that the fee presents a barrier to participation and their charitable offer.  I'll leave the charitable offer to those who are in need.
> It took a decade for the IETF to take this pay-to-play decision.  Was there any discussion about it?

The decision to charge for meetings pre-dates my time in the IETF by a wide margin, so I would defer to whoever was around at the time when meeting fees were first charged to explain whether there was discussion about it.


> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy