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

[Alexa Morris <[e-mail]>]

Antoin,

Please do submit your working group session request — as long the request is received by end of day Tuesday, we can include it in the agenda. If you can no longer submit it via the tool, please simply send your request to [e-mail].

Best,
Alexa

> On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Antoin Verschuren <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> My personal feedback:
> 
> As a WG co-chair I have been in 3 situations regarding funding for participating in IETF meetings:
> 
> I had an employer that mandated me to participate in all IETF meetings in person, and funded me and other IETF activity, and sponsored the IETF meeting in Maastricht. Funding was never an issue.
> 
> I had a short period where I had no employer that funded me for participating, where I attended 2 meetings that I funded myself personally during my holidays, and led my other WG meetings remotely because of lack of funding to travel and participating in person. Meetecho support was great.
> 
> Currently I have a governmental employer that has strict rules about conferences. I am allowed to attend up to 2 conferences a year. Unfortunately remote participation is not considered attending a conference, and since this is a governmental organisation, it will probably take 6 months before even an account number is invented for such a new form of event. I had permission to attend IETF108 in person, but the request needed to be made at the beginning of the year. Since we still have a travel ban for Spain, this permission has been canceled, and so is my funding for IETF 108. So If there is a fee for remote participation, I can not participate this time.
> 
> I applied for the fee waiver so that I can lead my working group while taking time off from my day job.
> 
> I would like to give my support for the new proposal, but I also have some feedback:
> 
> WG scheduling was due last Friday.
> I did not apply for a session for my working group yet, because I have no certainty that I can lead my group.
> I only get to hear June 23th if I receive a waiver and can participate. If I don’t have a waiver, I cannot participate, and I will propose an interim meeting to my WG instead. So in my case, it is not only me that will not participate, but probably also some (paying) WG participants as well.
> I think this will be true for other participants as well. We often have key WG participants presenting remotely because they cannot attend every meeting because of the funding barrier. They do great work that other WG participants rely on.
> 
> Since the new proposal does not have a limit on waivers, I would like to suggest to give waiver certainty to participants that otherwise cannot join before WG scheduling is closed next time. We need to know if key WG participants can attend at least remotely without a funding barrier when we set up our meeting agenda.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> - -- 
> Antoin Verschuren
> 
> REGEXT co-chair
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Op 16 jun. 2020, om 06:12 heeft IETF Executive Director <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>> 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 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> 
>> 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/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/TH2O7LE5WyoG60A3ERoKVz53x2E/>
>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf108-registration-fees/ <https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf108-registration-fees/>
>> [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8711#section-7.5 <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/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kZr2bc7Bw2jSWwx8HABIQb-Bo0Y/> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jay Daley
>> IETF Executive Director
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> 
> -- 
> Ietf108planning mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning