RE: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]

James Gannon <> Sun, 15 February 2015 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6BB1A1BCA for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:37:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YkvgpTrC8yoT for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::705]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E86A1A1AA0 for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:37:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:19:33 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0081.018; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:19:34 +0000
From: James Gannon <>
To: Michael Richardson <>, Stephen Farrell <>
Subject: RE: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
Thread-Topic: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
Thread-Index: AQHyKNWCJHlW+ne36IJtOhdCZMwVowJ6EBqBAkls04sCZdlS+gNHzFlLAaYfz+gCDDRwwAJ8CWfPA0EDb3UBqoLc7ANljhsAAQEjQJ0CGzW7VgMt31CwApxucH0B4HO7oALJkUjTAj1WhgcCcXOyiQJ111jZAlNonG2bLlhaEA==
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:19:34 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB3PR06MB217;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB3PR06MB217;
x-forefront-prvs: 0488C54DB4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(479174004)(13464003)(24454002)(92566002)(50986999)(15975445007)(2950100001)(2900100001)(77156002)(66066001)(62966003)(76576001)(102836002)(76176999)(87936001)(19580405001)(106116001)(19580395003)(40100003)(122556002)(33656002)(86362001)(46102003)(2656002)(74316001)(54356999)(93886004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB3PR06MB217;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Feb 2015 16:19:34.0826 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: d16a191d-a1e2-474f-9523-9f4888345fa6
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB3PR06MB217
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:47:25 -0800
Cc: Carlos Vera Quintana <>, Sam Hartman <>, ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:37:30 -0000

> If we wait for the technology to get better (what exactly does that mean?), there will be no clear incentive as to how to make it better, and no money to actually make it better.

Speaking purely about the remote participation aspect, I think one of the issues is that yes there are full featured solutions out there (Adobe Connect for example as used in ICANN) but they can be complex and not cheap.
The decision would need to be made whether remote participation is of a high enough priority to IETF to go after a full featured solution first, before then considering means of funding it. As Stephen says I think if remote participation fees are introduced without the remote experience to match it would not be a success.

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, if you're really serious about having an immersive remote participation I'd would reach out to ICANN staff for some feedback, as personally I've found their remote sessions to work extremely well. I'm sure there are other organization's as well that could provide feedback just speaking from personal experience with remote attending ICNN meetings.

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 3:46 PM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: Sam Hartman; Carlos Vera Quintana; ietf
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]

Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
    > On 14/02/15 18:21, Mary Barnes wrote:
    >> And, actually this is already happening with Meetecho.

    > I think we ought forget about charging for remote attendance until
    > remote attendance is much better. Remotely attending IETF-91 via
    > meetecho was a good bit better than I expected but is nowhere near the
    > point where we could charge. Let's make it work first, and then see how

I feel we need to split the difference.

a) we need registration for remote attendance first.  It can come with
   a variety of fee levels, including "buy 1 get 1 free" (if you paid for in-person
   last time....).
b) the fee could initially be $20, and could increase as the technology gets

If we wait for the technology to get better (what exactly does that mean?), there will be no clear incentive as to how to make it better, and no money to actually make it better.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]        |   ruby on rails    [