Subject: Planned changes to registration payments & deadlines

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 12:20:16 -0400

Dear colleagues,

As part of its report provided ahead of the IETF 101 meeting and
mentioned during the plenary session presentation, the IAOC advised
the community that there could be an increase to meeting fees in the
future.  After an examination of our finances and meeting attendance,
we have good news.  We plan to adopt minimal changes to the
registration fee structure and deadlines, starting with IETF 103.

Early-Bird registration fee remains at the same dollar amount as
previously.  We are able to do this in part because of a change in
procedure: beginning with IETF 103, we will require payment upon
registration, and we will move the deadline for Early Bird
registration to a date in line with other meetings and conferences.
We have also created a late registration fee.  This fee recognizes
costs imposed by late uncertainty in paid registration numbers, such
as adjusting expected numbers with the hotels and venues and needing
to provide for on-site printing of registration materials. 

Our refund policies remain the same: we provide a full refund to those
denied visas, but otherwise retain 10% of the registration fee for
cancellations received by the end of the Monday of the meeting (and
provide no refunds thereafter).

Here is the summary of the fee schedule and deadlines we intend
to adopt beginning with IETF 103:

    Type            Fee (US$)   Deadline

    Early Bird       700        7 weeks before Monday of meeting
    Standard         875        2 weeks before Monday of meeting
    Late (&on site) 1000        none
    Full Time
    Student          150        none
    Day Pass         375        none

    Payment is due at registration.

Registration will open no later than 12 weeks before the meeting (note
that there is a different discussion ongoing about registration
opening time; this is merely a commitment about the latest committed
opening time).

As we implement this, we plan to remove the option of cash payment for
registration on site.  Cash payments represent a risk to both the
Secretariat staff and the organization (because cash has to be carried
around), so we believe that existing options are preferable to
accepting cash payments.

This decision comes after three years without any change in the fees
or the fee deadlines.

Comments to the IAOC on timing or other matters may be sent directly
to the IAOC at [email-masked]; or if intended to be viewed by the wider
community may be sent to [email-masked].  Feedback provided within two
weeks of this note (that is, by 8 May at 00:00 UTC) will be
considered before the IAOC adopts the final policy.

Best regards,

Andrew Sullivan
For the IAOC

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 17:42:03 +0100

Hi Andrew,

On 23/04/18 17:20, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>  beginning with IETF 103, we will require payment upon
> registration,

That makes my life a bit harder. Not sure if it also
affects others hence cc'ing the list.

I usually register early, and make some hotel reservation
at about the same time. Later, I arrange flights via our
travel agent, and then generate one purchase order for
the meeting fee, flights and hotel (I get them to pre-pay
the room cost). They then do the meeting fee payment etc.

The above change will force me to do two purchase orders
which is a pain. And depending on how you link the steps
to register and pay, it might make it very hard for me to
work with our travel agent. (I need to send them a payment
link for the registration, for them to pay. That works
fine now and I hope you don't break that.)

I'd ask that the IAOC reconsider requiring payment at
registration time.

I'm also not that keen on the earlier early-bird. It's
fairly common that I won't know if I want to be present
for the weekend when the hackathon happens until close
to the meeting time. If you do move to requiring payment
at registration time, then that'd make no difference,
but with the current setup, I usually know enough before
the current cutoff to book flights at the same time as
we pay. I'd normally not know that seven weeks before
the meeting though so that change is also a bit of a pain.

If I'm the only one who has these kind of issue then your
suggested changes would likely be correct. If there're a
bunch of others who do similar things, then I hope that
you take that into account and don't make many lives a
bit harder:-)

Thanks,
S.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:08:01 -0400

Hi,

Thanks for the comments.

> affects others hence cc'ing the list.

We appreciate that it will indeed make certain things harder.

> which is a pain.

Or else, it will require you to commit to your flight dates earlier,
or else pay a higher fee later, yes.

> I'd ask that the IAOC reconsider requiring payment at

If we do not make this change, then I expect we'll see an
across-the-board fee increase, and I don't think we're keen on that.
 
> the meeting though so that change is also a bit of a pain.

That sounds like you're not actually planning to be an "Early Bird"
registration, then, but a "Standard Bird" or a "Late Bird".  I think
what you're really arguing is that it would be bad to face an increase
in registration fees if you decide late about your registration.  But
that increase is indeed exactly what is contemplated here.  "Early
registration" to the meeting is a commitment that you're coming to it,
no matter what.  Otherwise, use a standard registration.

> you take that into account and don't make many lives a

Some lives have to get harder: we can't afford to run the meeting the
way we do now, so something needs to change.  One way to change is to
make "early" mean, well, "early".  So that's what we are proposing.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:24:13 -0400

>> beginning with IETF 103, we will require payment upon

...
    > fine now and I hope you don't break that.)

I think that the payment being optionally a seperate step will not change.
It's just that you won't be registered until you pay, and if you miss a deadline,
you will pay a higher rate.  That will require some code changes.

(I'm amazed that you can have the travel agent pay your registration....
That's neat.)

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:59:28 +1200

Andrew,

A couple of pushbacks on this.

1. "Payment is due at registration."

I can understand that in general, but there are cases where
somebody wants to register without being quite sure whether they
will attend remotely or in person. So since registration for
remote participation presumably remains free, there needs to be
a clear option for upgrading from remote to on-site registration,
which would then require payment as part of the upgrade.

2. "Early Bird 700 7 weeks before"

Given lead times many people experience for travel approvals,
7 weeks *really* seems like a lot, however normal it may be for
other events. In fact, for travel planning the current IETF
policy is very user-friendly. Could we compromise at 4 weeks?

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:06:51 -0400

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the comments.

> which would then require payment as part of the upgrade.

I don't think I understand what you're saying.  If remote
participation remains free (there is no current plan about rules for
remote participation), then if someone decides later in the planning
cycle to go to the meeting, they pay the meeting fee on that date.
Are you suggesting that someone who registered early for remote
participation and later decides to go to the venue should qualify for
the rate applicable at the time they registered for remote
participation? 

> policy is very user-friendly. Could we compromise at 4 weeks?

I don't see how.  "Early" ought to mean, well, "early".  7 weeks is
early.  4 weeks is not; that's standard, and should pay the standard
fee.  We are warning people about this plan well in advance, so people
who need to get travel approval to get the early bird rate for IETF
103 may start their approvals process now (or, in a couple weeks, if
they really want to wait until the final details are worked out).  But
I don't see how it is even remotely possible to describe "4 weeks in
advance of something" as "early".

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:05:29 +1200

Andrew,
> the rate applicable at the time they registered for remote

I think you're over-interpreting what I intended to say, probably because
I said it badly. All I mean is: please be sure that the policy as finally
published, and the registration page, make it clear that someone who registers
for remote participation will have to pay whatever rate applies if and
when they later upgrade to on-site. I think that needs to be said explicitly
to avoid any possible confusion.
 
> advance of something" as "early".

Well, I'm suggesting that we should be nicer to people than some other
events. We're on a 4 month cycle, so direct comparison with (say) an
annual conference isn't fair. People can't necessarily make plans
2 meetings ahead. Also, when dealing with corporate travel approval
processes, and with corporate travel agents, the fewer constraints you
have, the better.

Regards
    Brian

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:15:38 -0400

> policy is very user-friendly. Could we compromise at 4 weeks?

So, we'd have 8 weeks during which you can get the early-bird,
then 2 weeks during which it would be the standard rate,
and then it's the Late Registration.

I have, btw, regularly (ab)used the registrer early and do not pay immediately.
I register, and then I start figuring out the airfare, and then I start figuring
out where I'm gonna stay, and then I cycle back to what if I go a day earlier, etc.

I haven't worked in an organization big enough to need travel approvals in 20 years.
If it takes 5 weeks to get approval to go, it seems that someone should
simply say to their manager:
       "If you can approve this by Feb 1, it's gonna be $700.
        If you can't approve it that fast, then it's gonna be $175 more.
	Or, I can register and pay now, and take a $70 risk that you
	won't approve me going."

Surely all the companies have figured out that the same has been true for airplane tickets?

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:43:04 -0400

Hi,

Thanks for this.

> to avoid any possible confusion.

Got it.  Thanks!

> processes, and with corporate travel agents, the fewer constraints you

If people can't plan 2 meetings ahead, then in effect they're in the
"standard" registration, I think.  That is, an "early bird" is someone
who is committed to go to the meeting whatever the agenda may be.  If
one's position is that one is not sure until later whether to show up,
it's not an "early" registration at all: it's an ordinary
registration, and one should then pay the ordinary rate.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 21:03:18 -0400

--On Monday, April 23, 2018 20:15 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I haven't worked in an organization big enough to need travel
> approvals in 20 years. If it takes 5 weeks to get approval to
> go, it seems that someone should simply say to their manager:
>         If you can't approve it that fast, then it's gonna be
> $175 more. 	Or, I can register and pay now, and take a $70
> risk that you 	won't approve me going."

Based on dealing with similar issues in a different setting, for
working meetings like the IETF (rather than "conferences" or
various [other] professional development activities, some
companies have fairly firm "don't bother asking for approval for
meeting N+1 before you have submitted a travel report and
documentation on meeting N".  For those organizations (and I
have absolutely no idea how many IETF participants have to
interact with them), consider that

	* The cutoff for submitting minutes is typically three
	weeks from the last day of the relevant meeting
	* The cutoff for corrections to the minutes, i.e., the
	date on which minutes can be assumed to be final, is a
	bit over another three weeks, i.e., six weeks out.

If one ends up on a position in which a travel request cannot be
submitted after that and one assumes a four month cycle, that
implies that the request can't go in until around nine or ten
weeks before the next meeting. Is that too close if the "early"
cutoff is 7 weeks before?  Maybe not... depends on the
organization.

Or try the other end.  For IETF-type meetings, it is not unusual
for a travel-approver to want to see at least a preliminary
agenda along with the travel request.  On our current schedule,
the preliminary agenda shows up about four weeks before the
meeting and the nominally final one shows up a week later, but
before the "early" registration cutoff.   If that boundary is
moved back, than no one who needs an agenda to make a decision,
or to persuade someone else to make a positive decision, then it
is all over for "early" and the window before "standard" is not
available is rather short.

Maybe that is still ok, but I think we should be sure we
understand what we are doing and, as Brian suggests, avoid
making decisions on the basis of false comparisons to, e.g.,
annual conference-type events.

    john

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 21:33:05 -0400

Dear colleagues,

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:03:18PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

> understand what we are doing

I think the IAOC is sending this out for comment precisely because we
want the community to understand what we (as a community) are doing.
I hope it is plain to everyone.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 21:39:00 -0400

> available is rather short.

This seems like a feature, not a bug.   People whose companies have expensive processes like this can afford to pay full price; they don't need the early bird discount.   If you don't tell them about it they'll never know that if they'd had a less rigid process they could have saved $200.

Also, FWIW, unless your travel approver is a lot more diligent than most, the information you get from the working group summaries, which are due on the Friday at the end of IETF, should be sufficient for a travel report.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:46:59 +1200

> This seems like a feature, not a bug.   People whose companies have expensive processes like this can afford to pay full price; they don't need the early bird discount.   If you don't tell them abo…

That varies very widely, but sadly it might work the other way: even if
it's internal procedure that causes you to miss the early-bird deadline,
some companies I can think of would still ding you for paying full rate.
I agree that the IETF isn't obliged to pander to corporate stupidity,
however. Nevertheless, my gut tells me that shifting this deadline to
roughly the middle of the inter-meeting gap will hurt a number of
attendees.

(That said: Thanks to IASA for bringing this up for discussion well in
advance.)

> Also, FWIW, unless your travel approver is a lot more diligent than most, the information you get from the working group summaries, which are due on the Friday at the end of IETF, should be suffici…

Again, expectations and requirements vary. Personally I've always written
my own IETF trip reports promptly; since I've had a laptop, they've
usually been finished before I get home.

    Brian

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 23:01:12 -0400

> some companies I can think of would still ding you for paying full rate.

There are many varieties of craziness in corporate bureaucracy.   Is it the IETF's job to account for them all?  :)

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 21:28:15 -0700

This seems like a good plan.

-Ekr

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:45:55 -0400

--On Monday, April 23, 2018 23:01 -0400 Ted Lemon
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> That varies very widely, but sadly it might work the other
>> way: even if it's internal procedure that causes you to miss
>> the early-bird deadline, some companies I can think of would
>> still ding you for paying full rate.
> 
> There are many varieties of craziness in corporate
> bureaucracy.   Is it the IETF's job to account for them all?
> :)

No.  But, if the IETF wants a broad range of expertise and
perspectives to be represented, then we had best be sensitive to
the implications of changes that might [further] decrease that
range.  I don't think any of us can predict those effects with
guaranteed accuracy, but saying "well, it is just too bad for
anyone who can't adapt, or who works for an organization that
won't adapt, we don't need them" seems to me to be unwise.  It
could turn out to be especially unwise if our credibility as a
standards-setter turned out to depend on exactly those
properties, and relying on no one noticing also seems unwise.

    john

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 06:54:55 +0200

[as an individual]

On 4/23/18 22:59, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 7 weeks*really*  seems like a lot, however normal it may be for
> other events.

This is explicitly being pitched as a fee increase, so certain numbers 
will necessarily need to be higher. Would it be more palatable to phrase 
it as "we're keeping the existing fee structure, but early bird 
registration increases to $875 while standard registration increases to 
$1000. Also, we're introducing an exceptional  'super early bird' price 
of $700 that is available to those participants who can commit to attend 
7 weeks in advance of the meeting."?

/a

---

From: "Roni Even (A)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 06:00:47 +0000

Hi,
I understand that there is a need to structure the meeting fees and I have no problem with the suggested structure

I do not understand why you need to pay when you register. The fee toady depends on when you pay and not when you register.

In my case working for an enterprise the registration where you have to provide your personal information is done by me while the payment is done by the purchasing department   using my registration link.
Having to  pay at the registration means that either they need to put my personal information or that we need to do it together.

Why is it important to pay when you register if the fee is based on the payment day?

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 7:20 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Planned changes to registration payments & deadlines

Dear colleagues,

As part of its report provided ahead of the IETF 101 meeting and mentioned during the plenary session presentation, the IAOC advised the community that there could be an increase to meeting fees in the future.  After an examination of our finances and meeting attendance, we have good news.  We plan to adopt minimal changes to the registration fee structure and deadlines, starting with IETF 103.

Early-Bird registration fee remains at the same dollar amount as previously.  We are able to do this in part because of a change in
procedure: beginning with IETF 103, we will require payment upon registration, and we will move the deadline for Early Bird registration to a date in line with other meetings and conferences.
We have also created a late registration fee.  This fee recognizes costs imposed by late uncertainty in paid registration numbers, such as adjusting expected numbers with the hotels and venues and needing to provide for on-site printing of registration materials. 

Our refund policies remain the same: we provide a full refund to those denied visas, but otherwise retain 10% of the registration fee for cancellations received by the end of the Monday of the meeting (and provide no refunds thereafter).

Here is the summary of the fee schedule and deadlines we intend to adopt beginning with IETF 103:

    Type            Fee (US$)   Deadline

Registration will open no later than 12 weeks before the meeting (note that there is a different discussion ongoing about registration opening time; this is merely a commitment about the latest committed opening time).

As we implement this, we plan to remove the option of cash payment for registration on site.  Cash payments represent a risk to both the Secretariat staff and the organization (because cash has to be carried around), so we believe that existing options are preferable to accepting cash payments.

This decision comes after three years without any change in the fees or the fee deadlines.

Comments to the IAOC on timing or other matters may be sent directly to the IAOC at [email-masked]; or if intended to be viewed by the wider community may be sent to [email-masked].  Feedback provided within two weeks of this note (that is, by 8 May at 00:00 UTC) will be considered before the IAOC adopts the final policy.

Best regards,

Andrew Sullivan
For the IAOC

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:13:31 +0200

I also don't need to get specific authorizations to attend IETF meetings
onsite. Having said that ...

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 7 weeks **really** seems like a lot, however normal it may be for
> other events.
>
>
> will necessarily need to be higher. Would it be more palatable to phrase it
> as "we're keeping the existing fee structure, but early bird registration
> increases to $875 while standard registration increases to $1000. Also,
> we're introducing an exceptional  'super early bird' price of $700 that is
> available to those participants who can commit to attend 7 weeks in advance
> of the meeting."?
>

A couple of interactions about meeting fees ago, someone made the point
that $1000 US was a common point where additional approvals are required.
If people are in that situation, they have more incentive than others to
register early at $700. Even the standard rate plus VAT puts you over
$1000, doesn't it?

Spencer

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 07:49:50 +0100

Sent from my iPad

> On 24 Apr 2018, at 07:13, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> A couple of interactions about meeting fees ago, someone made the point that $1000 US was a common point where additional approvals are required. If people are in that situation, they have more incentive than others to register early at $700. Even the standard rate plus VAT puts you over $1000, doesn't it?

So shouldn’t we act like marketeers on this and set the price at $999?

Indeed I would take $1 off each of the prices for approval psychology reasons.

- Stewart

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:55:29 +0200

Hi, Stewart,

> So shouldn’t we act like marketeers on this and set the price at $999?

When we started including VAT a couple of years ago, the point was made
that this was included in the same approval request as registration, so you
can end up over $1K US even if the registration itself wasn't over $1K US.

But I'll let people who that applies to assert that it's true now.

Spencer

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 07:17:10 -0400

Earlier in this thread, you said some things that seemed to imply that 
this early registration would help with avoiding or reducing the need to 
increase the meeting fee.

Can you say something about how the difference between 7 weeks and 4 
weeks is relevant to the meeting fee?

Thank you,
Joel

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 07:39:56 -0400

To clarify my question, the earlier wording seemed to say that the early 
registration avoided raising the rates.  From some of the other 
messages, taht seems not to be the case.  Rather, there is some model 
that was used by the IAOC to estimate the revenue increase if we allowed 
people who could register sufficiently early to avoid the increase.

If that is what is meant, then my question is largely irrelevant.  You 
have picked a time that produces enough additional revenue, precisely 
because many people will be unable or unwilling to register that early.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:25:53 -0400

> properties, and relying on no one noticing also seems unwise.

What you are saying here could be true, John, or it could be false.   We have no data to support either belief.   We do have data to support the belief that if the IETF doesn't raise its fees, it's going to be a problem.   It is on the basis of that data that decisions have to be made.   I have no idea how prevalent the policies you suggest are, or how many valuable IETF members will no longer be able to attend because of them, if this particular change is made.

An argument can be made that rather than having an early-bird discount, we should arrange the discount in some other way, such that these particular people would not be eligible for it, and hence their travel departments would have no basis for complaint.   But absent any information about how many people would be affected by this, it's silly to speculate.

To give you an example of the context in which this decision is being made, look at the decision to do an IETF in Hawaii.   Hawaii is a vacation destination; my accounting department pushed back on this for the first time in twenty years of coming to the IETF.   Others reported that they were unable to get travel approval.   This is a real-world example of the theoretical problem you are describing, but it has nothing to do with early bird discounts, and was not anticipated by the IAOC, as far as I know.

Importantly, a lot of good work got done at that IETF, and people who could not attend in person attended remotely.   Although I personally hated the venue, I went, and did my work, and it was fine.

If there are some few individuals who can't go to IETF because their accounting department isn't willing to pay rack rate on the conference fee, that will do a similar amount of damage, and we'll figure out how to adjust.   That's all we can do.   We are not omniscient.   At present, I anticipate the number of people who will be affected by this particular risk to be zero, but it's possible that you are right to be concerned; if so, we will deal with it when we learn more.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:28:53 -0400

On Apr 24, 2018, at 7:17 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Can you say something about how the difference between 7 weeks and 4 weeks is relevant to the meeting fee?

The early registration discount is an incentive for people to give the IETF more certainty about anticipated revenue in advance of the meeting.   You are giving the IETF something, and the IETF is incentivizing you to give it that thing.

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:23:54 +0530

Hi Andrew,

I hope the Invitation Letters for the Visa can be offered before
Registration/Payment in this case, so that one can make the payment when
the visa comes through.

An additional (anecdotal) input - in some organization the registration
fees is payed by the attendee and it gets reimbursed after the completion
of travel, so that would be a bit of burden across credit card payment
cycles for 7 weeks.

Thanks!
Dhruv

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:16:53 +0100

Ted Lemon wrote:
> The early registration discount is an incentive for people to give the 
> IETF more certainty about anticipated revenue in advance of the meeting. 
>    You are giving the IETF something, and the IETF is incentivizing you 
> to give it that thing.

from a different point of view, a clash is occurring between ietf 
bureaucracy and the different bureaucracies which ietf attendees need to 
deal with.

It is a rule of nature that when bureaucracies clash, it is never the 
bureaucracy which takes the hit.

Nick

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:06:36 -0400

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 07:39:56AM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> registration avoided raising the rates.  From some of the other messages,
> taht seems not to be the case.  Rather, there is some model that was used by
> the IAOC to estimate the revenue increase if we allowed people who could
> register sufficiently early to avoid the increase.

There are two ways that the early deadline for "early bird" helps us:

    1.  Some people will not decide whether to come early enough to
        get the 7-week-out rate, and they will therefore pay more.
        For those people, the change in policy is effectively a rate
        increase, and it will increase our revenues.

    2.  Some people will want the early rate, and will register early
        and pay for that.  That increases our early estimates about
        registration revenues, and allows us to make early
        determinations about expenses we might need to adjust in order
        to make meetings break even.

As we noted both before and during IETF 101, meeting registration
revenues are down.  They've also become somewhat unpredictable, with
meeting revenues varying from historical trends and payment dates also
varying.  We have lots of possible explanations for this, but nothing
that is definitive.  Speaking personally (i.e. I don't know whether
this influenced other IAOC members), one appealing feature of the new
deadlines is the way it aligns the signals of registration and
payment; our old approach tended not to encourage early payment, and
the proposal we are making has an incentive for that (and compensates
the IETF with more revenue when that signal is not present).

It could well be that meeting revenues are on a permanent downward
trend, but if so that will also affect the size of the meeting we need
to support and consequently will change our forecasts.  Good
forecasting is super important when we are aiming to sign contracts
with hotels a long time in advance of the meetings we plan to hold.  A
more accurate forecast of lower revenue is, for these purposes, as
good as an increase in revenue.

I hope that makes things a little clearer.  As I said, I don't want to
speak for all IAOC members in representing their reasoning for
supporting this, but I think the theme above was one of the prominent
parts of the discussion and was important to me.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:13:06 -0400

Hi,

> I do not understand why you need to pay when you register. The fee toady depends on when you pay and not when you register.

This is an issue that Stephen also raised, and I want to make this a
little clearer: we are not going to lose all the information people
enter if the payment step happens later.  The work flow may be a
little different than today, but it will be possible to enter all the
registration data and then come back later to complete registration by
paying.

What is different is in how we count this.  Today, we have "unpaid
registrations" and "paid registrations", and when you have filled in
your registration data you are "registered" (and listed as registered,
on the public list of attendees if you so wish).  That will stop.
>From the point of view of the meeting system, anyone who is not paid
is just not registered.

Does that make this clearer?

Thanks for the comment,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Matthew Pounsett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:28:00 -0400

> the rate applicable at the time they registered for remote

I think the suggestion was more about process than payment.  In the past,
it hasn't been clear how to go about changing attendance types, or even if
it was possible.  I had to switch from in-person to remote for a recent
meeting and ended up emailing the secretariat to get someone to do it
manually.  That worked because payment and registration were separate.

I'd like to echo a related idea from the thread:  perhaps we could maintain
the current separate registration and payment processes, but impose the
deadlines on payment?  In other words, it doesn't matter when I register...
whether I'm early-bird or not depends on when I pay.  I think that would
satisfy your requirements as well as keep the status quo process-wise for
anyone who has someone else (an employer, assistant, or whoever) paying on
their behalf.

>  But I don't see how it is even remotely possible to describe "4 weeks in
> I agree.  I think the proposed schedule is quite reasonable.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:30:21 -0400

Hi,

Thanks for the comments.

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 06:23:54PM +0530, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> I hope the Invitation Letters for the Visa can be offered before Registration/
> Payment in this case, so that one can make the payment when the visa comes
> through. 

The plan is that those who have previously attended (in person) an
IETF meeting (going back some time -- I _believe_ the records are
since IETF 72, but it's 'round about there anyway) will be eligible
for a Letter of Invitation (LOI) without registering for the meeting.
A new attendee, however, will need to register (and therefore pay)
when requesting the LOI.  This is to combat the potential to give LOIs
to people who do not intend to come to the meeting but who want to
commit visa/immigration fraud.
 
> An additional (anecdotal) input - in some organization the
> registration fees is payed by the attendee and it gets reimbursed
> after the completion of travel, so that would be a bit of burden
> across credit card payment cycles for 7 weeks. 
 
We are aware that some people could be affected this way, yes.
Individuals will need to determine whether it is better for them in
that case to pay the earlier fee and carry the balance for a credit
card cycle, or whether it is better for them to pay the higher fee
later and get reimbursement from their organization for that.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:36:23 -0400

Thank you Andrew.  That is helpful.  I am surprised and pleased that 
there are enough adjustments that can be made 7 weeks out to be helpful 
in managing costs.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:53:24 +0530

Hi Andrew,

This sounds reasonable! Thanks for taking it under consideration already!

Regards,
Dhruv

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Registration/

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:29:44 -0400

> commit visa/immigration fraud.

Which is apparently not a theoretical thing -- it has occured.
And when it occurs, it puts all our LOIs into question.

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Jonathan Lennox <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:33:18 -0400

> On Apr 24, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 

At what point will it be possible to buy tickets for the social event?  Because the social sells out so quickly, I regularly register as soon as the social is announced, so I can buy a ticket; but I delay paying the registration fee until a later credit card cycle, so I can get my travel reimbursement before my credit card bill is due.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:56:12 -0400

Hi,

> At what point will it be possible to buy tickets for the social event?  Because the social sells out so quickly, I regularly register as soon as the social is announced, so I can buy a ticket; but…

Thanks for this question.  The answer is not perfectly clear, because
there are a few possibilities.  Keep in mind that the social is not
actually operated by the IETF, so some of these details are up to the
host sponsoring the social.  Nevertheless, I can think of three
obvious alternatives:

    1.  The social usually has between 500 and 800 tickets.  It would
    be wildly outside our expectations that 500-800 people registered
    (including payment) for the meeting so far in advance that only
    the early birds could get social tickets.  So maybe do nothing,
    and social tickets are first come, first served.

    2.  Perhaps the social tickets could be released about a month
    before the meeting, meaning that people undertaking standard
    registration would have the same shot as early birds.

    3.  Perhaps some % of the tickets could be available as soon as
    the social is announced, with the (smaller) remainder being
    released close to the meeting, to guarantee that even late
    registrants could have a shot at a social ticket.

We may experiment with different approaches to see what works best.

There is one assumption in your question, however, that is worth
emphasising: you can't get a social ticket until you're registered,
and under our plan "registration" means "paid registration".  This
also applies to companion registrations to the meeting, &c &c.  There
will simply be no such status as "registered but not paid", even if
registration may take many weeks so that payment can be processed
separately from sign-up.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Apr 2018 12:57:40 -0400

>Registration/Payment in this case, so that one can make the payment when

No, but if your visa is refused, you can get a full refund of the
registration fee.  This has been our policy all along.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:30:43 +1200

On 25/04/2018 04:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...
> registration may take many weeks so that payment can be processed

Digging a bit deeper into that, there are other cases where you need
a registration number well before the meeting - registering for
certain types of side-meeting, for example. So will the registration
*number* be available while payment is pending? (An implementation
detail, I know, but probably better debugged in advance.)

    Brian

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 21:38:19 -0400

Hi,

No, a registration number will not be available under the plan, because the 
prospective registrant won't actually be registered before payment. Payment 
will be a necessary condition for registration. Without paying, one won't 
be registered.

I hope that's clearer.

Best regards,

A

--
Please excuse my clumbsy thums
----------
On April 24, 2018 19:30:52 Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

Brian

---

From: "Roni Even (A)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 05:38:58 +0000

Hi,
I asked this question and got no answer.
Is there a reason why you need to pay when registering since the fee is based on when you pay not when you register in the current policy.

It complicate the process when the registration which requires your personal information and the payment done by the company are done by two separate persons

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 4:38 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Planned changes to registration payments & deadlines

Hi,

No, a registration number will not be available under the plan, because the prospective registrant won't actually be registered before payment. Payment will be a necessary condition for registration. Without paying, one won't be registered.

I hope that's clearer.

Best regards,

A

On 25/04/2018 04:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
....
There is one assumption in your question, however, that is worth
emphasising: you can't get a social ticket until you're registered, and under our plan "registration" means "paid registration".  This also applies to companion registrations to the meeting, &c &c.  There will simply be no such status as "registered but not paid", even if registration may take many weeks so that payment can be processed separately from sign-up.

Digging a bit deeper into that, there are other cases where you need a registration number well before the meeting - registering for certain types of side-meeting, for example. So will the registration
*number* be available while payment is pending? (An implementation detail, I know, but probably better debugged in advance.)

Brian

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 08:25:15 +0100

Hi Andrew,

On 25/04/18 02:38, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> No, a registration number will not be available under the plan, because
> the prospective registrant won't actually be registered before payment.
> Payment will be a necessary condition for registration. Without paying,
> one won't be registered.
> 
> I hope that's clearer.
> 

That's clear.

FWIW, I think that's another bit of a bad plan - I see no reason why
the ability to buy a social ticket or not, or the ability to register
a companion or not, would affect meeting income. So the above sounds
to me like a plan that's going further than it needs to, and that may
represent more change vs. current tooling and folks' processes than
is needed. I'd ask that the IAOC re-consider those aspects.

S.

PS: I realise my workflow may be a bit of a corner-case, but I'm
starting to regret that the IAOC didn't just bump the meeting fee
and leave it at that - another US$100 or something on the fee could
even work out cheaper for me compared to the time spent dealing more
with my local bureaucrats... and for them having to deal more with me
too of course;-)

> On April 24, 2018 19:30:52 Brian E Carpenter
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 08:56:34 +0100

> with my local bureaucrats... and for them having to deal more with me

I would rather commit early and save the $175, particularly as I see a 
day when it
will be my $175 paid out of taxed income.

- Stewart

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 07:57:10 -0400

Hi Roni,

> I asked this question and got no answer.

My apologies; I thought I answered your question in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FkY0aC7GGDmHnp4_VwS6s28Rjt0/?qid=2b1021a715767b75d6ff36f5db2f96bb.
Let me try again.

> It complicate the process when the registration which requires your personal information and the payment done by the company are done by two separate persons

We will not require that registration happens in a single step; it
will still be possible to pay separtely from filling in the personal
information required for registration.  But registration is only
complete upon payment.

The reason we need this is not just perversity.  Part of the goal, as
I mentioned in another message yesterday, is predictability.  In the
case of a registration that is not yet paid, we have little in the way
of signal as to whether the person will show up.  Paid registrations
are a stronger indication of who is actually coming to the meeting.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 08:06:24 -0400

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 08:25:15AM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> a companion or not, would affect meeting income.

It affects expenses.  If you are not registered (i.e. if you didn't
pay yet) then we have no evidence you're going to come.  If you could
register for ancillary things without having registered for the
meeting, then if you never register we'd need to have tracked those
other things and be able to undo them.  The way that is handled now
is, "Not well," so the existing tooling and processes are not really a
consideration.

> with my local bureaucrats... and for them having to deal more with me

If that's the case, why don't you stick with your current workflow
using the later rate?  It seems to me that you could achieve your goal
simply by paying more money, no?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 22:27:56 +0300

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 10:56, Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather commit early and save the $175, particularly as I see a day when it

I agree that would be great. The thing that’s missing is a way to commit early and then pay later.

I don’t see how this can be done technically without having to go to court with people who changed their mind.

Yoav

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:57:50 +1200

Andrew,

On 26/04/2018 00:06, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> other things and be able to undo them.  

Let me just adjust your text to make it more precise:

"If you could register for ancillary things without having *paid* for the
meeting, then if you never *pay* we'd need to have tracked those
other things and be able to undo them."

Correct, and I fully understand that. But a side effect of the change
is that anybody currently using the registration system as a convenience
for arranging a side event can effectively no longer do so until the
7 week deadline, because people *will* pay at the last possible moment
to minimise their credit hit. And people who don't make the 7 week deadline
will then delay until the 2 week deadline. So the side event organiser
won't get attendance mainly settled until the last 2 weeks. They will
see two large spikes in registration corresponding to the two payment
deadlines. (So will IASA, of course.)

I'm not saying that's a disaster. But it is a change not mentioned in
your initial posting.

    Brian

> The way that is handled now

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:35:09 -0400

Hi,

> other things and be able to undo them."

That's not "more precise"; that's just a different meaning of
"registered."

I confess that I have never understood the IETF meaning of
"registered", in which one could be in this half-state of registered
for the meeting but not paid.  I've never been to any other
paid-attendance thing where there was any way to be publicly
registered without paying first.  But it is true, as I think we have
said all along in this discussion, that we are changing the meaning of
"registered" to mean "paid registration".  The plan does not
anticipate any other meaning of "registration".
 
> to minimise their credit hit.

I guess I don't understand the complaint.  To the same extent that the
IETF has a hard time predicting whether people will really show up
without knowing whether they've paid, anyone else would not know
whether the prospective attendee was really coming.  And presumably
the entire list of IETF attendees wouldn't be going to the side event,
so the list is too broad anyway.  Finally, the list is collected for
the purposes of registration for the IETF meeting and not some other
event, so actually using the data for some other purpose might be in
contravention of EU laws (alas, I am not a lawyer, so I can't say for
certain).  It seems such a side event would be better off maintaining
an independent list of prospective attendees.

> deadlines. (So will IASA, of course.)

Maybe we (and it's not _IASA_, but the IETF, of course) will see that
and maybe we will not.  It is hard to know without trying it.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:12:43 +1200

> anticipate any other meaning of "registration".

I can't be categorical, but I feel I've been to other meetings with
pre-registration prior to payment. Too many meetings over too many
years to be specific :-(.

> whether the prospective attendee was really coming.

One example is the WG Chairs lunch. Unless it's changed recently, you
have to sign up using your reg #. Currently, that's tied to an intention
to attend; in future, it will be tied to having paid.

Again, I'm not saying this is a big problem. I'm saying: it's a change
caused by the primary change. 

I think there may be other side-effects of the published list of attendees
too. Such as "I see that Fred Flintstone is planning to be there,
so I think I'll go too." We just don't know, of course.

    Brian

> And presumably

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 07:55:31 -0400

--On Thursday, April 26, 2018 00:35 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> "registered", in which one could be in this half-state of
> registered for the meeting but not paid.  I've never been to
> any other paid-attendance thing where there was any way to be
> publicly registered without paying first. 

Like Brian, I have too although it certainly is not a common/
frequent arrangement.  In some cases, whether it is "early
registration without paying" or "tentative statement of intent
to attend" is mostly a matter of terminology.   For the latter,
note that a non-trivial number of meetings require an "I intend
to attend and here is the paper or poster I would like to
present" statement/application with no fee and little
expectation that the person will actually pay registration fees
and show up if the presentation is rejected.  There are, of
course, also a lot of meetings that are "free" or for which the
registration fee is trivial but only after one pays an annual
membership or subscription fee.  Comparisons need to be made
carefully.

> But it is true, as
> I think we have said all along in this discussion, that we are
> changing the meaning of "registered" to mean "paid
> registration".  The plan does not anticipate any other meaning
> of "registration".

I think I'm realizing, as the discussion unfolds, that parts of
it have gotten the cart, not merely in front of the horse, but
confused with it.   Is the following an at least s nearly
correct summary of the bottom line:

(1) We need to increase registration income.  We have found are
three possible ways to do that.  One is to manipulate the
charging structure and timing, another is to raise the rates for
everyone, and the third is to charge categories of people (e.g.,
remote participants or remote presenters) who are not now being
charged.

(2) At least for this round, the IAOC has (tentat6ively) chosen
the first option.  This new fee structure is intended to
increase registration revenue in two ways.  One is by forcing
more people, particularly those who cannot commit long in
advance, into the "standard" fee structure.  The other is by
extracting funds much earlier from anyone who wants "early"
discounted rates.  

(3) Those are primarily revenue-based decisions.  There are some
other effects, some of which are anticipated to be useful enough
that "side-effect" isn't quite right, but they are secondary to
the need to make revenue-increasing changes.  They include
elimination of what might be better described as early
notification of tentative plans to attend than as early
registration, but that is, again, a terminology question and,
with that, changes in the data available to AMS and ISOC that
you believe will make those data more helpful.

Viewed that way, the whole question of "register without paying"
is mostly a distraction.  Because of some enterprise policies,
"start registration and complete it (by paying) only later"
probably is an important option, but it has almost no effect on
anything above.  That said, if there is enough demand for what
we've historically called "register without paying", I suppose
IAOC could set up a mechanism for people to indicate tentative
intent to attend and open that process the Monday after the end
of the prior meeting if that made people feel better.  Maybe it
would even yield enough useful data to be worth the trouble
although I gather the IAOC has its doubts.  But it would not
cause any action on the IETF's part: no registration number, no
invitation letters, no fee changes, etc., except possibly
individualized "hey, early registration is about to close, you
indicated you were probably coming, want to register and pay up
before the fees go up" messages if people thought those might
help.

Does that about cover it?

best,
   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:03:38 -0400

--On Thursday, April 26, 2018 15:57 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> "If you could register for ancillary things without having
> *paid* for the meeting, then if you never *pay* we'd need to
> have tracked those other things and be able to undo them."
> 
> Correct, and I fully understand that. But a side effect of the
> change is that anybody currently using the registration system
> as a convenience for arranging a side event can effectively no
> longer do so until the 7 week deadline, because people *will*
> pay at the last possible moment to minimise their credit hit.
> And people who don't make the 7 week deadline will then delay
> until the 2 week deadline. So the side event organiser won't
> get attendance mainly settled until the last 2 weeks. They will
> see two large spikes in registration corresponding to the two
> payment deadlines. (So will IASA, of course.)
> 
> I'm not saying that's a disaster. But it is a change not
> mentioned in your initial posting.

Remembering that we used to go to considerable lengths to
prohibit or inhibit "side events" as a distraction from the
IETF's work and that many of the "side events" that occur today
cause at least some work for the Secretariat and increase the
demands we place on facilities, let me make a counterproposal.
This is made more to try to bring the issues that are being
raised into focus than as a real proposal but, if the IAOC
wanted to consider it, I wouldn't lose any sleep over the idea.

We redefine things so that there are two kinds of side events.
Type 2 is the "old" variety: no use of IETF facilities, even
announcements on bulletin boards, no coordination with the
Secretariat, use of the meeting hotel (or venue if different)
strongly discouraged or, if it occurs, forcing event organizers
to make their own arrangements with the venue with no allowances
for adjustments for co-location with the IETF.  What the IETF
does about registration has no effect on this type of event
because there just is no interaction.

Type 1 involves the kind of coordination that I infer from
Brian's message but anyone applying to set up such a side
meeting, asking the Secretariat for room or scheduling
assistance, or wanting to make arrangements with a venue or
hotel on the coattails of IETF contracts initiates those actions
with an application to IAOC or AMS that is accompanied by a fee
of several times the "standards" registration fee. A few "side
event" applications at 5 or 10K USD each in addition to
registration fees for those attending would, presumably, justify
the costs of giving out preliminary registration numbers to
people making notices of intent to attend.  If the IAOC wer4 to
make a nominal charge for such notices (as a deposit to be
credited against the registration fee when paid), it might also
help... and, in combination with the rest, have a noticeable
benefit to the bottom line.

Again, mostly just a thought to clarify the issues and one that
should probably come with a disclaimer than I've never liked the
idea of side meetings (or highly organized pseudo-BOFs or
pseudo-bar-BOFs that require space but don't go through the
normal review, approval, and agenda processes and the
expectation of minutes) so I'd consider making them harder a
benefit.  But, if we are going to complain (or even notice) that
changes in registration models inconvenience side meetings or
their organizers, we should also be considering the incremental
costs of such meetings and probably discussing how to recover
those costs (and whether it makes sense to make money on them).

best,
   john

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:32:27 -0400

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 07:55:31AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

> Comparisons need to be made carefully.

Indeed.  I will observe, for instance, that the fact we don't have
memberships (let alone corporate memberships) complicates our
situation quite a lot.  I _think_ we all still think that's a feature,
but it's worth noting.

> correct summary of the bottom line:

[…]

It's probably one useful way to understand things, anyway.  I don't
know that it's exactly how I'd describe things, but there's more than
one way to describe most phenomena.

> is mostly a distraction.

Yes.

> before the fees go up" messages if people thought those might

Who will pay for the creation and operation of this feature?  Features
are not free.

Given our size and what we're doing, we're operating on a shoestring
budget.  But people need to understand that the competitive landscape
is not in our favour.  There is a lot of consolidation in the
hospitality industry (if you're unaware of this, please use your
favourite search engine to read about Marriot and Starwood, or
AccorHotels' recent acquisitions).  Our long-running deal with Hilton
is expiring, and its terms were quite generous.  Venue operators have
minimum expected incomes from a group our size, and if they don't get
that income somehow they simply won't welcome us at all (this is why
trimming cookies doesn't help: if F&B goes down, meeting space charges
will go up to compensate).

Meanwhile, our tooling is not getting cheaper, and a lot of it is
bespoke.  We have neither a really large income base nor an obvious
way to diversify and increase it without affecting the nature of the
IETF.

I am very much in favour of operating in an open way, and I welcome
comments on the proposal we are making.  But I also want people to
appreciate that the _status quo ante_ is not going to be on the list
of options.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:02:33 +1200

Front posting to say I agree with John that side meetings
may (or may not) be problematic in themselves.

Regards
   Brian

On 27/04/2018 01:03, John C Klensin wrote:
> .

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:52:16 -0700

> Who will pay for the creation and operation of this feature?  Features

There is a tool for this that every one already has.  It’s called a Calendar.  For example, I registered for Montreal yesterday and put an entry in my calendar for when the registration fee is due.  I will even get a reminder a week before because I need to submit an internal PO for the registration fee before I pay.

Bob

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 22:52:47 +0530

> registration fee.  This has been our policy all along.

Thank you. This helps immensely. It would be great if you can mention
this prominently for first-time registrants as well as for people who
have to apply for visas (but have been to the IETF before) .

-- Vinayak

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Apr 2018 13:50:59 -0400

> have to apply for visas (but have been to the IETF before) .

It's on the page where you register, CANCELLATION/REFUND POLICY, item 1.

R's,
John

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 17:25:37 -0400

> have to apply for visas (but have been to the IETF before) .

Note that (as I observed somewhere upthread) people who have been to
the IETF before will be able to get their letter issued without
registering, too.  Of course, one might not get the visa before the
early bird cut-off, and therefore one might want to pay the early fee
with the assurance that, if one does not get the requisite visa, one
will get a refund.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]