Hi Stephen,
Hiya,
First, thanks to you, the LLC board and all involved
reviewing this.
I think that outcome is a good one for IETF108. More
thanks for landing on that.
As to a community discussion about setting the policy
for future cases, the commitment below is a good one,
but I think responsibility for the first part of that
should lie with the IESG and not the LLC.
Best, Alissa
That is, Ithink the IESG need to run a discussion as to whetheror not charging for remote participation is ok or not,and if so with what broad principles/goals/guidelines,and after that the LLC ought figure out how best tomeet those goals, or send 'em back to the IESG if thereis no way to meet 'em and stay solvent.For example, a principle that might be one that'd emergefrom an IESG-lead discussion, but less likely from anLLC-lead one could be: "there's rough consensus that theparticipation of open-source implementers of internet-drafts ought have very low barriers to entry and ongoingparticipation." I'm not saying that ought be a principlewe follow here, just that we may want to say things likethat and that's more likely if that discussion startswith the IESG calling consensus on what we want, beforethe LLC figure out if that's doable and HOWTO.Cheers,S.On 16/06/2020 20:53, Jay Daley wrote:Please see the announcement below that was sent yesterday.
Two people have replied directly to ietf108planning@xxxxxxxx and I
encourage others to provide feedback either directly or to this
list.
thanks Jay
Begin forwarded message:
From: IETF Executive Director <exec-director@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx> Reply-To:
ietf108planning@xxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxx
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 happensâ€.
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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
<0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
|
