Subject: >1 Day One Day Passes

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:06:42 -0800 (PST)

What is the right way to register for two one day passes? Since the money 
comes directly from my personal resources, attending two days for $400
is much better than ~800.

Dave Morris

---

From: Alexa Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:36:17 -0800

David,

As the policy currently stands, attendees are not permitted to  
purchase two one-day passes. From the IETF 77 registration announcement:
---
One Day Pass Registration - USD 200.00
We are once again offering a one-day pass for $200. Benefits are:

1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and partake of
the food and beverage during the breaks
2. You select which day to attend when you show up onsite to check-in
3. Payments may be made onsite without a late fee
4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, however, late  
fee
may apply if initial one-day payment not made before Early Bird deadline
5. Attend Sunday Tutorials at no additional charge
6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at no additional charge
7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday Plenaries at no additional charge
---

It's true that the above does not explicitly state the "only one 1-day  
pass allowed per person" policy, though my understanding is that is  
the clear intent. The primary intention behind the one-day pass is to  
give new -- mostly local -- individuals a less expensive introduction  
to the IETF and what it is all about.

Finally, I want to note that as long as you register and pay by March  
12, your meeting fee will be only $635.

Regards,
Alexa

On Feb 24, 2010, at 2:06 PM, David Morris wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

-----------
Alexa Morris / Executive Director / IETF
48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA  94538
Phone: +1.510.492.4089 / Fax: +1.510.492.4001
Email: [email-masked]

Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS)
Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning
www.amsl.com <http://www.amsl.com/>

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:57:27 -0800 (PST)

Well my understanding from prior discussions was that the intent was to
encourage more participation. When R/T airfare is on the order of $140 who
is local is quite different. Etc. For self sponsored individuals,
attending an IETF meeting is a big expense. And from what I've heard,
folks with corporate sponsors are cost sensitive as well.

Since multiple one-day passes aren't explicitly prohibited, I have to
assert that they are permitted, and based on many of the reasons for
having the option in the first place, it makes sense that they be 
permitted. I understand that adding the option to the web registration
at this stage would be difficult ... so just tell me what the required
level of uniqueness is and I'll sign up twice. 

Thanks

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Alexa Morris wrote:

> David,
> 
> As the policy currently stands, attendees are not permitted to purchase two
> one-day passes. From the IETF 77 registration announcement:
> ---
> 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, however, late fee
> It's true that the above does not explicitly state the "only one 1-day pass
> allowed per person" policy, though my understanding is that is the clear
> intent. The primary intention behind the one-day pass is to give new -- mostly
> local -- individuals a less expensive introduction to the IETF and what it is
> all about.
> 
> Finally, I want to note that as long as you register and pay by March 12, your
> meeting fee will be only $635.
> 
> Regards,
> Alexa
>

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:20:02 -0800

data point.  I tried this in Hiroshima and was rebuffed.
They would only allow a -single- one day pass per IETF week.
the second day they inisted I pay the walk up cost for the 
whole week - minus the cost of the one day pass I already 
used. 

So for one day, plus 20min in a WG on the second day cost 
me the full weekly rate.  Perhaps the most expensive IETF
participation I've ever had to bear (and yes it was 
from my personal resources).

I understand IETFs are expensive and are money loosing
activities (at least this century - when I hosted last 
century - we broke even - but there was a local host then)
but this does not seem to be a (good) way to increase 
percived value for money.

--bill (who is taking no chances this time and is pre-paying
the full rate ahead of time - but is likely to only attend 
two WG sessions)

-- 
--bill

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:24:56 -0800 (PST)

Dave,

Speaking as someone involved in deciding this experiment (and it 
really is still an experiment that could be revoked before the
next meeting -- IETF 78) I can tell you that the intent was always
to allow ONLY one day's attendance on the day-pass and that multiple
day passes were not an "intended use" and therefore perhaps we should
have prohibited such.

The IETF has never been about policing and door monitoring and relies 
on the honor system in many ways. You could certainly argue that 
getting 2 x $200 is better than getting nothing if you decide not to 
attend, but with only one meeting we don't have a lot of data that 
tells us about use and abuse of this system, so it's still an 
experiment. (Those more economically inclined than me can further 
analyze the numbers). Trying this in Japan made sense since we (and 
our host) wanted to introduce the IETF to a wider community of 
"locals" (all of Japan really), and in Japan getting permission to be 
out of the office for ONE day is a alot easier than getting permission 
to be out all week.

When RIPE introduced one-day passes they got more attendees overall, 
and more meeting revenue and of course the benefit of greater 
interaction with more people at the meeting (yes, this is the ultimate 
goal as you say), but the RIPE community may not behave the same way 
as the IETF community, especially when you consider that you can fly
from, say, Oslo to Amsterdam early in the morning, attend an all-day
meeting and fly home at night.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:50:23 -0800

On 2/24/2010 5:24 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>    with only one meeting we don't have a lot of data that
> tells us about use and abuse of this system,

Ole,

Besides the statistic of the number of one day passes, how is the assessment 
being done of folks who wanted one more day pass, or who declined to attend, who 
would have done a regular fee if the one-day had not existed, or any of the 
myriad other tidbits that might aid in understanding the effects from this 
experiment?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:00:55 -0800 (PST)

> day passes were not an "intended use" and therefore perhaps we should

but you didn't ... seems like a suitable experiment to expand based
on private emails I've received, there would seem to be more interest
than just my own.

> meeting and fly home at night.

That works for Anaheim as well if you happen to be from the San Francisco
Bay area and your last meeting doesn't end at 8pm ... which was the
case when I last used that approach for an LA IETF meeting.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:40:26 -0800 (PST)

Dave,

This is what we have surveys for. I'll let Ray summarize the findings 
and I'm sure this will be a topic for discussion at the plenary too.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> being done of folks who wanted one more day pass, or who declined to attend,
> who would have done a regular fee if the one-day had not existed, or any of
> the myriad other tidbits that might aid in understanding the effects from this
> experiment?
> 
> d/
> -- 
> 
>   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:07:00 -0800

On 2/24/2010 7:40 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> This is what we have surveys for.

I know.

I was implying my usual points about the challenge of doing good survey research...

Casually formulating a few questions doesn't mean that the responses will tell 
us anything all that meaningful.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker