Fees after IETF 108 [Registration details for IETF 108]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 02 June 2020 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD823A1030 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h1q64V3RFDl5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52e.google.com (mail-pg1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35F0E3A1012 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id o6so219582pgh.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 14:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zovuEnCDlsrL5dB0Y+/kUwCkZXu4RnpBAvCjUkEou04=; b=O1sZQDMT1Lw4C0sH93rIr+q6OJNLCVE2j16HjgLtQuhuzicfA5tggC2EMdZe3Z0/vD a38eHEVxCTUgMRJScqfCfCDJzXnZjc8J+iHTSMCny0FivItOyhbpjLZGPI5RgA71tfQ3 C4OANVOUO/wu/f7GMSYThLwUTFp1meC9Zvn53CkCJtQAUHcsLTGC2NEscu0xhEvC42Eh RcpL1nhK4kwCHxT9S0OdFPhtqKIaEQLvE8k6yQAyjk1ado4m3YfeVUyWmaCmePlOPvK+ 5ScKwe00a5jX1iI6aWnZK50tFVOoqqRiMWPBmL4dL3jztyfqAPWUngo2ndP+Rt2sghBZ PJwQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zovuEnCDlsrL5dB0Y+/kUwCkZXu4RnpBAvCjUkEou04=; b=Tvr7mEtfaKQKNiL85TOMI8uOfGOkDPWXh11ufb9R07FvCZAI06vzWqPiLMe8QMPK64 HKjT0JesdoX8/lmfU4aExzg8n+botZkERw7xYrnm8kO7lzbq82ihdqs5MqkKxYfhN+2Z dSAG5TaEXY68p6rVu5TaXcAJNqMBrdKmrqP5Wv6TNCAdC4XSSjVc+N7DilSB0xJxI4y5 KkPDYahuI+AERcXHejMAHGRJxrdECKRolKDDw8MasqwTpnZfkkj17xt3UyEfMZYKRVph 1s4VC4YAelGAkgMLw5bSwfUogn2Ul3QrJ1mpJ77CiPOqIQ6xMdRkUsCghT0YMN0Wi848 J51A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530KRJ+wBZT9akPob0HJCpfrpbOrFLNhQAAxFdsxz6aW8YamAQLI 9d6lT6cU75Dxx6/9mIYflyhgrIST9OA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyxRaC1R4lXXL7aDyzD287Yy61dVPXtOq1wosrpSi76rOfBX8hcf/n89Zv/Wb+FLykWvlSESA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:8814:: with SMTP id s20mr1441269pjn.74.1591133996379; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 14:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h3sm93248pfr.2.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jun 2020 14:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fees after IETF 108 [Registration details for IETF 108]
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.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> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <9F71F116-D7B2-4ECE-9000-957A0C497404@ietf.org> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$@gmail.com> <CABcZeBOLAw_9s-gobFYB=5THu_Q70UmDLn_ZhVXhNRHN_nu_0w@mail.gmail.com> <607b7682-0a75-62b6-fd0e-5e2e1171a68b@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMBEqhn115ToB0SwOGavmXze4DdJdL941J4LeVMRrPngpQ@mail.gmail.com> <e1b804ae-4c2e-fdf3-8804-47820d35facf@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d4006774-8ee4-bc50-0751-0f75e632c7c6@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:39:50 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e1b804ae-4c2e-fdf3-8804-47820d35facf@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xgLMleFt32q7QXL5Nlbnq8f9QPA>
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 21:39:58 -0000

Fully agree with Stephen on this. It's very clear to me that a
*permanent* change to charging for remote listening to meetings,
and for remote speaking in meetings, is a fundamental change
of standards-making policy and it's clear to me that consensus
on such a change has to be called by the same mechanism as a change
to RFC2026, i.e. by the IESG.

It also seems clear that the LLC has a part to play in the discussion,
such as laying out the facts of life (remote meetings cost money). 
Once the principle is decided, it seems like the LLC's job to set the
level of the fees. 


On 03-Jun-20 08:55, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 02/06/2020 21:44, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> You appear to be arguing that moving from zero to any number
>> for a particular class of participants effectively excludes some of those
>> participants from the standards process and because that would be a
>> standards process change, that would pull it from their bailiwick. 
> No. I'm arguing that the move from zero to non-zero ought
> be an IESG decision, based on community discussion. That's
> not only because it might exclude people but also because
> such changes can have longer term and subtle effects. One
> already pointed out on the wg chairs list is that this
> may create an incentive to have virtual interims for WGs
> outside the IETF meeting week, as those don't have a fee.
> That could be good, bad or indifferent in terms of the
> standards process.
> To be clear: I'm not now arguing that remote participation
> ought not have a fee. I might make that argument later in a
> discussion about policy for IETF109 and beyond but my
> argument here is solely about who gets to set the policy. I
> do not believe that ought be the LLC. (But can live with
> IETF108 as an exception.)
> Cheers,
> S.