Re: Registration details for IETF 108

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Howdy,

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:56 PM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
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.
>

And the decision by the IESG on the timing of the interim will have an
impact on registration and thus on revenue; clearly the two groups (LLC and
IESG) should talk to each other (and the wisdom of having an IESG appointed
member to ensure that is pretty evident).

But somebody has to be the stuckee for the decision on the money side of
that, and at the moment it is the LLC.  Having been on the IESG before the
IASA process, when the IESG did all of that, I will personal object to any
effort to shove that level of decision back on the IESG plate.  The money
side moved onto a different set of plates for darn good reasons, and it
shouldn't move back.

Things were pretty plain on IETF 107:  the IESG decided to cancel the
meeting when it was no longer going to be an effective meeting (standards
issue), but the logistics of financing stayed with the LLC.


>
> 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.)
>
>
The LLC is not a separate body from the IETF--it's the part of the
leadership with this set of responsibilities.  Like the rest of the IETF,
there are times when their role requires public consultation and an
assessment of consensus.   I hope you'll both trust them to do that right
and recognize that if we give them the responsibility for that job, we
ought to give them the relevant authority.

regards,

Ted



> Cheers,
> S.
>
>
>