Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 11 June 2020 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A253A0061 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZP8x-H3uilPa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 345F43A005B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A95300B3B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:07:50 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id iG8K6zRD5Pfp for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:07:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-72-66-113-56.washdc.fios.verizon.net [72.66.113.56]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9107F300A31; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:07:48 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <2a36750841d34cb99695077d60760ceb@att.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:07:49 -0400
Cc: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3949E994-C3BA-4392-BB1A-0D66EDE84065@vigilsec.com>
References: <159166311543.4506.736406779378278905@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFgnS4WOjmNOf_MRfms1RD0e15xYP-xcfNiyqS7p5ofYBEQPdw@mail.gmail.com> <d65a8aeffc61b6d069afa87f3c91b10496c4d5b2.camel@lsl.digital> <5FCC8656386268B41681E1DE@PSB> <B4293B17-6F83-4B9E-89BF-C0B1388F346F@cable.comcast.com> <CABmDk8=gxXiQ60hpdCNB6jK0EG_ssAQnzjgJp=c9yXNKabHKeA@mail.gmail.com> <CABmDk8mwVfWZQmBwZ9c4xaoStwv7CeRRceihTR846iq_LYPFFw@mail.gmail.com> <F6BFB099-2526-4EEB-A267-F2A1D0A7DDFB@cooperw.in> <35fb0076-a240-096a-de7f-280d5e7ad1e3@cs.tcd.ie> <2F0FDD2B-03C8-4E76-9149-A2666147C66E@csperkins.org> <27875646-243d-8d03-b588-866b883fea7c@cs.tcd.ie> <8C935847-70C8-439B-8F4C-83DB9A43E4DF@ietf.org> <46159495-3bef-be6d-31f7-1b83737359ad@gmail.com> <B6DFDB6D-7A97-4EE3-8554-6AF005C73EC3@ietf.org> <2a36750841d34cb99695077d60760ceb@att.com>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vygvTu6pZCOLZglRvxlD9KXTADA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:07:57 -0000


> On Jun 11, 2020, at 2:42 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> 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 https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf108-registration-fees/ 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


I really like this idea.

Russ