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

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 02 June 2020 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5154C3A10DE for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nY2bRtnwFeeE for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 959DA3A10DF for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b201so229368pfb.0 for <>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 16:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6g8tx5yrXP67mEBDkK6nrpk6Gji067IyR/FVomVke20=; b=rODb1yriE4dMLujflzDNJx6T7GNk+Phf55OOWp2DR38HarzEoK96yxV3wH6oqZbsg7 l4aqVx1rH7kGofG00gTjKh+QGRnWqkHVE7NTDovnWrPZtA9levaAm6nK3rOa0NMLTJ12 IUnTVC3LX8dRUlLbiQAZ5FakNXm9Z4ZIh4Rcutve0U9H6Bk6nkNisoNAZA2spHXveF48 tc9IcSsbkWv4w8avQKnkmXTzipjXo1B8ewYbNU2UkGXoLnutSNQ67C73d3IzPTv1h5Br sxJv0V7yM+uoLk6/AFl05rsc4U6r7GUljkRfIdz4I9VHVbI+rmmyWg4eqgzdC7jTmX40 KTzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6g8tx5yrXP67mEBDkK6nrpk6Gji067IyR/FVomVke20=; b=Zn1qiEUbns9QYBxSbUqnUZZ+DGzFC7Eu0ihzdk+Hf5vzkkgKzLVoF4dUwe7lfRLkgN tIfr1jKOoNRoprYAdV+Jq0DHcVxIqIl4p0MJ+dPnPCvGl+M60pVK4wuvH/pixXcHEBAt n7r53rCDdabvqM/TinW8DCiYOYb+1icDAzeEm7BUh41OAXK37dv1vaBibl/ekrr2aypx SVvchUVCMPHjJMXD7q5yAqS1iXFzbNBCDw26EbgTDJDWyUQ0EMLsENCOivCC3He8LX+1 +jzHz9vk5jCEV7wdC7VQy5q8Rg4lxUM7YO9o3dnK32PelZq7BVn1a8q16O7brTQAK0PT 2kyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532eqvrxVCu+hdTLAUF4QWqqgbV9sCJ6DA1pi4O9sOyqNY+14hce aAwnrvOgYmG3kGhTkOoblC03BvAA9vQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqlwfLdVNriorKWr9Sw/G2PJT2mBR2ZhtoaLCSItjFdu1xA3JZzTWfsdWMjC2q2KYKH04hvg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:c58:: with SMTP id 24mr26537900pgm.246.1591139223543; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 16:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id h11sm107044pjk.20.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jun 2020 16:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Fees after IETF 108 [Registration details for IETF 108]
References: <> <> <> <> <> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:06:58 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 23:07:07 -0000

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.


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 < <>> 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.