On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 8:59 AM Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Murray will correct me if I am wrong, but I have several comments: > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, at 12:37 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > I'm wondering why we should wait for IETF110 rather than having an interim > meeting sooner. Interim meetings are also likely to garner greater > participation since they do not include participation fee. If there are > topics worthy of F2F discussion, why wait? If there are not, then why > charge people to join a pointless meeting? > > 1). All online IETFs this year had "free attendence" option. If people can > afford to pay to attend, they should, as this supports RFC publication > cost, cost of online meetings, etc. But people can attend for free if needs > be. > As far as I know this is going to be the case for IETF 110. > I concur. The fee for virtual meetings is less than half that of the usual in-person meetings since the IETF's costs are obviously lower, but we do need to keep the lights on. For people that can't afford to participate otherwise, there is a fee waiver program available. I suggest that this working group has enough of a work queue before it that having both an interim meeting and a scheduled session at IETF 110 is certainly worth considering. -MSK, ART AD
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
