Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

George Michaelson <> Thu, 11 June 2020 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8822F3A15C7 for <>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 qbBPfoPcgNfF for <>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0AAF3A0873 for <>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r77so4367904ior.3 for <>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Zgrwg1dhn8wH8J5zgN3sDzxNGv9h8VsN8Bdsjq4ZoEo=; b=c7/6VgC6cNEk3GnteGIObHtZHLOW/RGq3WIFJm0QACx9yvP0IBSL4ZBB8lrIZ6M4mk ELC5ThdAsHruod0ULItflVoZLU9FjBmqG3ZYBSYT04BT1X/j29wT9Yy2VW6z/WeS89QF MvdQOOLW2DdsevbqJiOa9lR0dH1jHPxMBXMnqcQ1NnHUeg869FZKOkOTRQtvos3ufpRw p4fS0rMCIsT+cGhsUadS5AAo+AClB5crjJis2EQoV7ZY83GkQ8tmWAvp4aLX6s6h3rGt 1Omp+sk9XR6n4qCsSEqVfi6nwUJcnW/LnGfff6yUZAPz4b5NUGTWuusJn0FGzdAGTRnN pOOA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Zgrwg1dhn8wH8J5zgN3sDzxNGv9h8VsN8Bdsjq4ZoEo=; b=SBIAlLlRbgGKlP8zVt4tQuDcPNjGfspoHFQtE4bQY3w6/pAtX4HfBJwPK2jciRHsp4 TxdLF6r1ZprCf4V4LXQXvgawB1vNOPnDfsnGgJradFcm7r7AW0Az4aAvsnvKs3zlkCD3 n+SIRLf+pHr5sIvzO2g7pQjrOXGmjvww9MBNynTC+/n6wHXUG7+o8sBM2ZTWkeD+er5j NPZ/8RwAbgstVSq+m9WyAufmJJei0ScC0XTd/s15ivQhvGja5cQ3OX2H16rToGZWoNPw LVjCtMyrjjCO1HvyuwLWAPY6kelRfmTUJvu6pfV1BYC2tWamhvzkWADQM54nNJlgiCRU WcOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532N0oSlevHF1qzELoD4MOm1cdmvYP4GvKwfWmmGD/N+SXGtcqAf IKdjN/0umoV9fRExQ4l/venOKmIDscPErftL2f28fBdc4sM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzrjc7vedn1dVeWbzqANDnu67LqyCpv1f4jjzssio84ox4sYdXLVqs5tcqSGVH4iZVX35W8FoQvCJtDzJMAN5s=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:dd07:: with SMTP id t7mr5930932iop.21.1591833684879; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: George Michaelson <>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:01:14 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
To: "" <>
Cc: ietf <>, "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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 00:01:29 -0000

It would be entirely normal for a body which is not primarily about
earning revenue, to incur the risk of LOSING revenue in a significant
change from f2f -> online, in order to understand the nature of the
problem. This would not be incorrect. Its a decision an LLC can take:
incur some costs, to understand your problem. Its a capped risk. It
cannot exceed the loss of revenue of the total number of IETF
participants.  (that is btw a loss of income, not necessarily a loss
running the meeting. So it could arguably be called an opportunty cost
more than a loss)

So, I would actually expect an un-capped fee waiver to be available
and to base the worst-case risk side of 'how many waivers do we need
to fund' on how many people elect to take the option.

I haven't yet seen a cost model which explains how the free
participants remotely represent a cost to the IETF to run. Is there a
volume based charge in Meetcho? Is there a volume based cost to the
infrastructure to run the web-casting?

I note that every meeting I have attended online this year (RIPE, DNS
OARC32 (I am on the board) and the up-coming ICANN RoW) have been
entirely free. Two of the three examples would normally charge.

I simply don't understand how either the LLC or any other body decided
there had to be a limit on "free" noting that many of us expect to
pay, but an uncounted number of us might suffer financial hardship
which in previous times, was unassessed and hidden in 'remote
participation is free' models.

I think this is a huge departure from our norms. I would have expected
this to be discussed.