Hi, > On May 31, 2020, at 4:54 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dear Internet Engineering Steering Group, > > [Reply-To override] > > At 06:12 PM 27-05-2020, IETF Executive Director wrote: >> This meeting will have a substantial agenda but as the cost of an online meeting is lower, the registration fees have been set at approximately one-third of those for an in-person meeting. A detailed explanation of why we charge a fee for meetings and how the fee reduction was set for IETF 108 is provided in a separate blog post [3]. > > In 2013, the IETF Chair affirmed that the Internet Engineering Task Force embraced the modern paradigm for standards. One of the points in the document is the standards process being open to all interested and informed parties. If I recall correctly, I raised a point a few months before 2013 about the IETF allowing free access to its meetings through the Internet. I could not help noticing that there is now a required fee to access the next IETF meeting. Was that approved by the IESG? The IESG does not approve meeting fees. In this case, the IESG discussed the proposed fee structure and suggested imrpovements. As a body I would say we are supportive of it, but not every IESG member is happy with it. > > I took a look at the meeting policy for the IETF. I never understood why that policy is described as an ambition. Anyway, as that policy does not specify anything about changing the existing practice for fees, it is unlikely that the decision to charge for online meetings can be challenged. > > I would like to thank the IETF LLC Directors for acknowledging that the fee presents a barrier to participation and their charitable offer. I'll leave the charitable offer to those who are in need. > > It took a decade for the IETF to take this pay-to-play decision. Was there any discussion about it? The decision to charge for meetings pre-dates my time in the IETF by a wide margin, so I would defer to whoever was around at the time when meeting fees were first charged to explain whether there was discussion about it. Alissa > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy
