Re: [Ietf108planning] Response to registration fees feedback

> On 15/06/2020, at 5:06 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Generally this looks sound; just a few quibbles, inline.

Thanks 
> 
>> ANNOUNCEMENT:  Response to feedback on registration fees for IETF 108
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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 action was not consistent with the documented consensus guidance of RFC 8711.
> 
> In the previous paragraph we are roughly saying "we were following RFC
> 8711" but here we say "oops, we didn't really follow 8711".  Some way to
> rectify those messages ("but we realized we were wrongly interpreting 8711
> in <x> way" might help.  (Or maybe I am confused about what this is saying,
> and there is not an internal disconnect in the text.)

I think changing ‘action’ to ‘process’ in the third paragraph will make the distinction clear. 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I am not fully caught up on my mail, but is this "clarify" and not
> "introduce"?  I am not sure what the previous honor system was...

It was an honour system but not explained properly. 
> 
>> 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, as the fee waiver system is intended for those people who would not otherwise pay the registration fee, it should have no financial impact.  We will only be able to tell after the event if that is the case, but as one member of the community put it “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” [5].
> 
> I know the other thread talked about the quote already.  I wonder if
> marking it up as a block quote instead of an inline quote in quotation
> marks (with corresponding change in how it's introduced) would help it
> convey its message better.

Will do. 
> 
>> 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. 
>> 
>> 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 17 June 2020 at 23:59 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.
> 
> 48 hours is ... pretty tight.  Probably tight enough to merit some kind of
> annotation in the message subject, if it can't be stretched.

Will do. 

Jay
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
> 
> -Ben
> 
>> 
>> [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 have been requested.
>> [5]  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kZr2bc7Bw2jSWwx8HABIQb-Bo0Y/ 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jay Daley
>> IETF Executive Director
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ietf108planning mailing list
>> Ietf108planning@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning
> 
> -- 
> Ietf108planning mailing list
> Ietf108planning@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning