Re: [Ietf108planning] 48 hour consultation on response to feedback on registration fees for IETF 108

Jay,

Thanks for the change in the waiver system. Up through IETF 106, I was
sponsored by my various employers for IETF work and was a very regular
attendee, going back to the late 1980s. However, while I now still have a
number of drafts winding their way through the system (some still in the
WG, others with the IESG or the RFC Editor), I now find myself unfunded for
IETF work. I did participate in IETF 107 as a free remote attendee, and I
continue to join interim WG calls in those WGs where I still have drafts to
complete. However, as I'm only active in a small number of WGs, I was
planning on sitting IETF 108 out rather than use up a waiver that could go
to someone that really needed it. Now I can register for IETF 108 and use a
waiver without depriving anyone else of one.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:53 PM Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> wrote:

> Please see the announcement below that was sent yesterday.
>
> Two people have replied directly to ietf108planning@ietf.org and I
> encourage others to provide feedback either directly or to this list.
>
> thanks
> Jay
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: IETF Executive Director <exec-director@ietf.org>
> > Subject: 48 hour consultation on response to feedback on registration
> fees for IETF 108
> > Date: 16 June 2020 at 4:12:21 PM NZST
> > To: "IETF Announcement List" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> > Reply-To: ietf108planning@ietf.org
> >
> > The IETF Administration LLC has reviewed the feedback provided by the
> community in response to its decision regarding registration fees for IETF
> 108 [1] and invites further community feedback on proposed changes to
> address this feedback.
> >
> > The LLC set new registration fees for IETF 108 [2] based on its
> understanding of its authority to set registration fees as detailed in RFC
> 8711 [3]. This was in response to the exceptional circumstances of deciding
> whether to meet in person and, if not, whether and how to hold a fully
> online meeting.  Because of the very short timescales the LLC decided that
> there was insufficient time to substantively consult with the community and
> so instead consulted solely with the IESG.
> >
> > In retrospect, the decision not to consult with the community was a
> mistake as this deprived the community of an opportunity to express their
> views and for us to respond, and because that process was not consistent
> with the documented consensus guidance of RFC 8711.
> >
> > Based on recent community feedback, the LLC proposes the following
> changes to address the other key concern expressed - that the new
> registration fees might prevent people from participating who would
> otherwise do so remotely and without fee if this were an in-person event:
> >
> > - Unlimited Waivers: Remove the cap on the number of fee waivers
> available.[4]
> >
> > - Clarify Honor System: Update the registration page to note the cost of
> the meeting and to clearly state that fee waivers are offered on a trust
> basis to those for whom the registration fee is a barrier to participation,
> with no requirement to demonstrate eligibility.
> >
> > - Remove Waiver Deadline: Remove the deadline to request a fee waiver -
> this can occur up until the conclusion of the meeting.
> >
> > - Refund Fees If Needed: If any participant has paid for a registration
> but now needs to apply for a waiver, they may do so by contacting the IETF
> Registrar at registrar@ietf.org
> >
> > While this proposal is not made from a financial perspective, we do not
> expect any financial impact as the fee waiver system is intended for those
> people who would not otherwise pay the registration fee.  As one member of
> the community put it: [5]
> >
> >    “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”.
> >
> > We understand that this proposal will not address all of the community
> feedback, particularly the view that setting a fee for a fully online
> meeting requires community consensus.  However we believe this proposal
> will address the major practical issues raised and enable a successful
> meeting. These fees only apply to IETF 108 and so should not prejudice any
> future community discussions regarding fully online meetings.   Should IETF
> 109 or a later meeting move online and no new community consensus
> guidelines be available then we commit to engaging in a community
> consultation process as set out in RFC 8711 before making a decision.
> >
> > Given that the meeting date is quite close and so operating on a
> compressed timetable, we invite feedback on this proposal within the next
> 48 hours (ending 18 June 2020 at 03:59 UTC).  The LLC can then review the
> feedback and implement a final decision before the currently published
> closure of the fee waiver period on 18 June 2020 at 23:59 UTC.
> >
> >
> > [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/TH2O7LE5WyoG60A3ERoKVz53x2E/
> > [2] https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf108-registration-fees/
> > [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8711#section-7.5
> > [4] As of 11 June 2020, fifteen waivers had been requested.
> > [5]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kZr2bc7Bw2jSWwx8HABIQb-Bo0Y/
> >
> > --
> > Jay Daley
> > IETF Executive Director
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IETF-Announce mailing list
> > IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> jay@ietf.org
>
>