Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Melinda Shore <> Thu, 11 June 2020 02:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA713A1651 for <>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 BeBcMqaz42j4 for <>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::632]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 355D93A1653 for <>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m7so1741260plt.5 for <>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7KjYiq0TKRA94uute9l7/yTWUrjzdYUmmIjla5jTEHg=; b=egy6BOfz9tROvI0qaM+BbBMPjUD+UvnsHbq9WRC1U0GOBejLEklgpMYv0k09lhNGXf zDDh5Q3VeK6Bm0U1m9idatZ3RO/jua2ANShTl3Qr6KXXEyeSwEs4A6VnMP0P1yUUiyI9 8cJPYSJwN3riTBkrqRyEr76K4fcgIQ51ZlzJqyce9wnpXw/nj+Mid7WZxPugN2AtaXnF K8nxJOUFDc/FMHzlB9hSOOnL2lvNiZ8Y0zSPvw+3chECQ5dEt/ZKEI7ZreEusU6P/ZJK 34qezZ8N5VvgIzkonX/aXUdBp23QXZG6dLT3yGSeXV6ZGFmvSNH4P+DJ5Cd3IvnV9r17 NvJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7KjYiq0TKRA94uute9l7/yTWUrjzdYUmmIjla5jTEHg=; b=lbTLD7SM0LRy9K8phFea60wznXYlxVbm9KYmSNgHYDNVHx/CoHmRMqgP5FkoLgqGF3 IsgOP9pZ2Dx5+Kaf1kI4NIxXQk2accGZMAICA0tfrPriDdis6J2gCxKo6SbdG/hmhJT6 jbYzYzqxBo6CAI0lDGMcw2k8IK/mTcVS/MpZBpF1HllPNFCu7Nbz40IXC8PqfEn1q2fX /muorFXAo3ZdxTeaFMIu55VWCgfega8DbTbF+kFRSyS9A+K4i8gh7NtCuZbFIEbdAZJm NIMb1+DFQ8wPJZIEhD8LThG5774HbQjMVgYsuR7ktesWQQyDQZbK/uA5fcZVIdy/ZezT G+kw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531UQ/jPK3+UMCzmMph4IDImtn7AFPwwXNC7WB6VxNTUkOrmhqB7 fHS6IM6y/u4y2TJeVlcINpvdTcR3
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwDpQXeebx0aLMAM2aPcY6bId4N6Rtk8T+dQkrMRYPSXdHo/zc7WZr/0H0M0RKrTcNZRT3EHA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:4b:: with SMTP id 69mr4915539pla.99.1591843193718; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aspen.local ([]) by with ESMTPSA id y9sm1252556pfr.184.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
References: <> <> <> <5FCC8656386268B41681E1DE@PSB> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 18:39:51 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 02:40:12 -0000

On 6/10/20 6:21 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
> As well as stating that you see this a switch from a zero to non-zero
> fee, I think you’ve also stated that such a switch can only be made with
> community consensus.  Given that you and some others firmly oppose this
> switch it would seem that community consensus could not be achieved
> within the necessary timeframe to make such as switch for IETF 108, if
> at all, no matter what process was used to try to find consensus. 
Well, I don't know about that.  Stephen can (and does, with
admirable vigor) make his own arguments but from my perspective
this discussion really hasn't grappled in any meaningful way with
the question of openness and the IETF's working method.
Introducing a fee for all remote participation in IETF meetings
introduces a new barrier to participation[*].  It's not simply about
the money, per se.  And if we're introducing barriers to
participation in ways that impact the openness of the process,
it does seem inappropriate to do that without some fairly
deliberate community discussion.


[*] The fee waiver program strikes me as a bandaid, not a solution.
Melinda Shore

Software longa, hardware brevis