[Ietf108planning] Fwd: Registration open for IETF 108

Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Sun, 14 June 2020 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf108planning@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf108planning@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9672A3A1288 for <ietf108planning@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:52:03 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 B6AIl_cvH88V for <ietf108planning@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C4FE3A1278 for <ietf108planning@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4B0DA6BF-9F3D-4AFC-8C09-C6188A0B5EDE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Message-Id: <B9368686-5DFB-4130-A1D0-57E7193CA95E@ietf.org>
References: <98B3DAEE-F9B7-47C1-AE0E-4559D1572740@gmail.com>
To: ietf108planning@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:51:59 +1200
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf108planning/5McAFSi_MopnV0j2Ug_SzoU1pis>
Subject: [Ietf108planning] Fwd: Registration open for IETF 108
X-BeenThere: ietf108planning@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf108planning.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf108planning>, <mailto:ietf108planning-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf108planning/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf108planning@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf108planning-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning>, <mailto:ietf108planning-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 20:52:04 -0000

This message was held in moderation for ietf108planning and has already been replied to.

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Tim Chown <tjc.ietf@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
> Date: 11 June 2020 at 9:03:11 PM NZST
> To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "exec-director@ietf.org" <exec-director@ietf.org>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, "ietf108planning@ietf.org" <ietf108planning@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
> 
>> On 11 Jun 2020, at 01:50, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>> 
>> Hiya,
>> 
>> On 11/06/2020 01:20, Colin Perkins wrote:
>>> I tend to view the fee as a reduced rate on the in-person IETF 
>>> meeting fee, since the meeting has to happen in a different format 
>>> due to the pandemic.
>> 
>> That is reasonable. It is equally reasonable to regard this
>> as an increase from zero to non-zero. That is why we need
>> a community debate, before, and not afterwards.
>> 
>>> As an exceptional case, that seems reasonable to me. If it becomes 
>>> the new normal, then clearly a broader community discussion will be 
>>> needed around the IETF funding model.
>> 
>> I don't think anyone has said that we need this revenue
>> now or else are in trouble. Thought has also clearly been
>> directed to preventing "unauthorised" access to IETF
>> meetings and materials. To me, those strongly imply
>> that this is not really perceived as a once-off, but that
>> relevant people do consider that we will continue charging
>> fees for remote registration. Again, that is not an
>> unreasonable proposition, but imposing it on the community
>> without debate is unreasonable.
> 
> I can see both points of view, but it would help to understand the rationale for the fee if there were some data published - and maybe I missed it - on the administrative cost of running a wholly online IETF meeting.  And whether that fee is covering purely those, or a share of the year on year administrative costs for the IETF.
> 
> I have a recollection, but may be wrong, of seeing somewhere it being said that the annual running costs of the IETf were pretty much met by the ISOC financial support, and that meetings ran roughly at break-even.   Is that the case?
> 
> Tim
> -- 
> Ietf108planning mailing list
> Ietf108planning@ietf.org <mailto:Ietf108planning@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning>
-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org