Amazingly enough, I've participated in several IETF meetings, when needed for
drafts I was working on, without being charged for it, so I'm curious about
this 'discount' I'm now going to get.
Scott K
On Monday, June 1, 2020 11:07:43 AM EDT Livingood, Jason wrote:
> It's interesting that the issue has been framed as a new fee will be charged
> to participate in an IETF meeting. But there's been a fee to attend an IETF
> meeting for as long as I've participated in the IETF. I might suggest that
> another way of considering this is that the typical meeting fee is being
> discounted for the virtual meeting.
> Jason
> (not speaking for the IETF LLC - personal view)
>
> On 6/1/20, 8:39 AM, "ietf on behalf of Suresh Krishnan"
> <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of suresh.krishnan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +1. I think this is a reasonable decision and allows people to
> participate without financial barriers, while allowing the ongoing
> activities funded by IETF meeting fees to proceed without interruption.
> Regards
> Suresh
>
>
> > On May 31, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with Eric in his description. From where I sit, this seems a
> > reasonable decision by the leadership.
>
> >
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/31/2020 5:13 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 1:56 PM S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> <mailto:sm%2Bietf@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?
> >> 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?
> >>
> >> I don't think the characterization of this as "pay-to-play" is
> >> accurate. You
are certainly free to participate in mailing lists,
> >> github, etc.
> >> What is being charged here is a fee to participate [0] in real-time
> >> virtual
meetings, just as there is one charged for attending
> >> in-person meetings. -Ekr
> >> [0] I emphasize "real-time" as I expect that the recordings will be
> >> available
after the fact as usual.
> >
> >
>
>
