Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 11 June 2020 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C513A179C for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.696
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id smMNd3nHQuGr for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2586A3A1793 for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 05B9g7UT022981 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1591868539; x=1591954939;; bh=U+/FPL+/ipIFjY2vJnebH1Isp+OpEPXl1ElFKU96s24=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=KUwf5gK7HvgKNVsMAa1cW7/uk001ipCJmCFLlxaIP02lcG8qEdVRgJ6tHbfmcEAUd yzHj/pGd3GNvigLV64qk8YbkkPlkLWSSQWZEpIqMkLtgJl8UGsxymzma3VUVwcRxvA R+LoYY2IY2ZeeUKdXu3tOmlUM8OAsDWp6w4UYdcY=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:40:54 -0700
To: Colin Perkins <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 09:42:48 -0000

Hi Colin,
At 05:34 PM 10-06-2020, Colin Perkins wrote:
>>One datapoint: The RIPE meeting which went 
>>"virtual" in May had *record* attendance (and no fee).
>I'd be interested to see how the RIPE funding model compares to that of IETF.

I'll disclose that I am a Board member of Afrinic 
Ltd.  The funding model is different from the IETF.

Sometimes I hear the word 
"micromanagement".  That word is also included in 
the document which the IETF wrote for the 
LLC.  There are matters which a community has 
strong views about.  I can either listen to the 
views of the community or argue that the 
community should not discuss the matter as it is 
akin to micromanagement.  As an example, I could 
say that the community does not have any right to 
ask questions about the attendance fee.

The second word is "oversight".  I could be 
silent about the potential issues which I noticed 
or share some thoughts/advice for free.  As an 
example, the "broadcast rights" could potentially affect the "Note Well".

It is very difficult to strike the right balance.

It has been said over the years that the IETF is 
funded through attendance fees.  The travel 
restrictions due to COVID-19 could cause a 
potential loss of revenue of $2,311,531 [1].  I 
took a quick look at the information [2] which 
was shared at IETF 107.  Is there a risk of the 
IETF facing financial difficulties in 2020?  Are 
the persons attending that meeting allowed to ask 
questions about that?  Would it be prudent to 
initiate the funding model discussion at that point in time?

Section 7.5 of RFC 8711 states that: "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."  The assumption when that RFC was 
approved by the IESG is that a meeting is a 
physical meeting.  What is the appropriate course 
of action when the assumption is no longer 
valid?  I have not come across those 
circumstances before.  There are well-established 
protocols [3] which could be used to guide the decision-making.

The IETF (used loosely) will be making the same mistake twice.

S. Moonesamy

1. It is complicated to come up with a good 
estimate as I don't have access to information 
which would be required for that.
3. The word "convention" would be a better fit.