Re: Registration details for IETF 108

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 01 June 2020 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 083C23A1582 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 12:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 yh1EsIQcm1aG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 12:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 531253A158E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 12:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jfqKU-0007R4-5O; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:42:38 -0400
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:42:32 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
Message-ID: <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <70d1493c-4c00-f32e-8996-72d0a8369571@comcast.net>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200531121457.0b249858@elandnews.com> <CABcZeBOzVHaSZa0A3eDz12RwNuCiHtiJL8wqvAhhLPN6YEQOkQ@mail.gmail.com> <3f9a0e50-c01b-01c6-ad52-95f370baeb8d@joelhalpern.com> <B71999A2-3EC6-4649-864F-674BA494B511@gmail.com> <616FD1DE-C25F-44CE-9FA3-CC00943FC98B@cable.comcast.com> <A9DBD8B0-01B3-4C68-91B3-BD1E99E226BA@gmail.com> <70d1493c-4c00-f32e-8996-72d0a8369571@comcast.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wPZcGftvj8bLcR9yU9bU-xRUb3c>
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 19:42:53 -0000


--On Monday, June 1, 2020 13:00 -0400 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns@comcast.net> wrote:

>...
> I think the LLC did a good job in balancing conflicting needs
> by providing the possibility of fee waivers.   To be honest,
> I wish the fee waiver were only partial as I think having some
> skin in the game from all of us is important.  I don't
> remember who said it, but "People don't value things they get
> for free" seems somewhat applicable.

And that is one of two closely-related reasons why a few of us
have been suggesting for years that remote participants pay at
least a nominal registration fee.  The other is that payment
typically provides a small measure of authentication.

   john