Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

Lucy Lynch <> Thu, 11 June 2020 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6423A0DE0; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:53:57 -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, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UYpuBg7sdY3c; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::42]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94173A0DDC; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:1c0:cb00:da11:5822:a051:7164:fe81] ([IPv6:2601:1c0:cb00:da11:5822:a051:7164:fe81]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 05BIrn73028096 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 18:53:50 GMT (envelope-from
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
From: Lucy Lynch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:53:48 -0700
Cc: Jay Daley <>, "" <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17E262)
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 18:53:57 -0000

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 11, 2020, at 11:42 AM, STARK, BARBARA H <> 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 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.

This is a graceful way to solve the problem and in keeping with what I would hope are our community values. 100% support and my thanks for expressing something I’ve been thinking so clearly

- Lucy

> Barbara