Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Ole Jacobsen <> Thu, 11 June 2020 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34103A0E4B for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GYjbTjymYhuB for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1B373A0E33 for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=1a1hai; t=1591901926; bh=Z6VkYz9uRqoBo/SY0GirPyX/sIVZKqDCuNipbdeFfWA=; h=Content-Type:Subject:From:Date:Message-Id:To; b=XzJjScJHoHcATe7kYrbIORetbSyU0BksUJug/RqFHB6e2LffnVDLbQCJ9pHXt5uTm TNgCYIAc6seT/NuVmwjqHmlPMoHct0hspt0DxB7vydygH1b4mF8rmPZMbPy1an/SBH bAcb4GyZFMY1Jqv1DMeRtVTktF3DiSni/bJZ5mNmfdgyoZ8RHv7LUCT44RCLnsMfgj 0az3mI1ZyfR53lb5iH0ZWq/TpxZh1tyP3MKhPBx7w+MbFhdF7y9ctci2aOCg4K5qJd WH0oV7oAnctyl/RK8Jqe7kFdkl2w4ezAEKgcCU1bwtYjtfgGLWUG57+pmka8Dj6IYp DJzl8JIfUv/Fw==
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F047B12074B; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 18:58:45 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
From: Ole Jacobsen <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:58:45 -0700
Cc: Ole Jacobsen <>, Jay Daley <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <5FCC8656386268B41681E1DE@PSB> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-11_20:2020-06-11, 2020-06-11 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-2004280000 definitions=main-2006110147
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 18:58:55 -0000

Hi Barbara,

I was going to suggest something very similar, recognizing that we have more or
less 2 classes of attendees; those who “always” attend in person and those who
never do so for whatever reasons. Since it is reasonable to assume that the “always”
crowd already had Madrid in their budget (private or corporate), it would seem
to follow that Virtual Madrid is indeed going to represent significant savings over
a normal meeting.

If we were to add a box with something like:

[x] I’d like to contribute an additional amount to support remote participants (etc)

… which lets you add an to the “shopping cart” during registration.

This would indeed be a very nice experiment!


> On 11 Jun 2020, at 11:42, STARK, BARBARA H <> wrote:
>> If the fee waiver programme were uncapped then would you still regard that as a bandaid?
>> Jay
> I'm going to reply at this point in the thread with some thoughts I haven't seen expressed yet.
> Much of the commentary against registration fees has come from or on behalf of people who struggle to pay the fees.
> Much of the commentary for registration fees has come from people who do not struggle to pay the fees.
> As someone who doesn't struggle to pay the fee (because my employer finds it a significant savings over what would have been paid), but who recognizes that others do struggle, what I would have preferred would be:
> Put a statement on the registration page:
> IETF needs to raise $515,145 to pay for costs that would normally have been covered by in-person registration fees. See for more details. We request that those who are able to pay the fees do so. Any who are not able, please simply check the "waiver request" box. You will then be able to register for free. If your company would like to help sponsor our experiment with unlimited waivers (to enable IETF to continue allowing all to contribute, regardless of situation) , please contact us at <email>.
> And then have unlimited and automatic waiver.
> IETF likes to experiment. So we should experiment with a trust model. Trust that only those who need the waiver will request it, and see what happens.
> Barbara

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell:   +1 415-370-4628
Skype: organdemo