Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Jay Daley <> Wed, 10 June 2020 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4293A0CB5 for <>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ToYq6XmAY7GL; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro.localdomain (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC0893A0CB4; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2E8A94CE-812F-45B0-8173-24B1C842C8A5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:13:34 +1200
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Melinda Shore <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
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: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 00:13:40 -0000


> On 10/06/2020, at 9:41 AM, Melinda Shore <> wrote:
> On 6/9/20 1:33 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
>> It was discussed yes and we felt that adding one more special fee
>> without considering all of the other factors affecting affordability was
>> inappropriate, and that doing that should be part of a community process
>> to provide us with guidance.
> I apologize if this seems like piling-on

No worries, this is all important.

> but I agree with Stephen
> that this is all becoming a bit problematic.  Why do you need a
> community process for providing discounted registration fees but
> not for changes to the IPR policy

As only just explained a little while ago, that was a mistake,

> and to the institution of a
> fee for remote participation?

That’s one way of interpreting it.  The other is that we have always charged an in-person meeting fee and now that the entire meeting has moved online, the fee has moved online with it and where previously we had a special mechanism of remote participation for certain groups of people, we now have a special mechanism of fee waivers targeted at those who are most affected.

Answering your main question about drawing the line between an interim decision without community consensus and something that requires consensus, the general approach is to take the minimum decisions possible with the smallest number of exceptions.  In the end it’s a matter of judgment though.


> Melinda
> -- 
> Melinda Shore
> Software longa, hardware brevis

Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director