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

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 14 February 2015 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1F41A6F0D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:43:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DwM-sPUIBxrs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:43:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 953191A6F0E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:43:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id l15so17585916wiw.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:43:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=+jCOZmr8tvjEgIYi/PQD7giNUyqDeuJlFXnms76ceaQ=; b=whGWi0YBTq3sTphVC44Aj2YAeLR46yj84SzNCqDI3TdrNxtlrPsQh4khDUcisdp9Rq OqHJr3ZZUenws3SvNEWA9kzfa7DscR3TW8ts/6HtiwkRKtl+aIMLNMdEowU0TREFZ/fp nvAzzBeCPpMo4YbAz674gDFwmfLtoyKouPQhCZ+d+xwRzPPwZHuSdze+Q4/dPYYiDVA/ nwuBCW3dVwDpGv0O1MPeSTHZbdBu9X5PqrkQwdclO3f1R0w33Zc1u4V9HJEtWQsaGVSK +V03Wj3mrjdViIWAW4cel8Dr9Ae4ZCFFbu945P7G6bR+j13PU5RR5DvomRpFkZsHy1/W KTAg==
X-Received: by 10.180.126.69 with SMTP id mw5mr13859804wib.12.1423932217379; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.15] ([46.120.13.132]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qo10sm14827133wjc.38.2015.02.14.08.43.35 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:43:36 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <61FBB27B-4EF3-40A0-8981-00EB89698295@isoc.org.ec>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:43:34 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B90F5E29-06C5-41D1-9F31-1BE42382995F@gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DBD71C.20101@joelhalpern.com> <26803.1423772214@sandelman.ca> <tsla90ikh85.fsf@mit.edu> <37661D4B-1842-4890-88FB-2A7B13CDC884@nominum.com> <CABmDk8m1KuSs8os9V7fcYOJC2O4yMb6dRFer+nEPBTTSHtey9Q@mail.gmail.com> <31891031-4628-49CD-B66C-38A3BD787B70@trammell.ch> <54DE7F09.8030500@gmail.com> <C5FC0DB6-82F8-4C38-ABFD-D5D9A6E65933@isoc.org.ec> <54DE90C6.6030609@gmail.com> <E39AF4E0-58AB-4249-8A37-3D1CD2D5A691@gmail.com> <54DE9844.1010807@gmail.com> <61FBB27B-4EF3-40A0-8981-00EB89698295@isoc.org.ec>
To: info@isoc.org.ec
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/34Bghiycwpdzpu8oLnIFXilETvM>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq@gmail.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:43:41 -0000

Uhhm, who are that “gold bureaucracy" who stay at 5-star hotels at the IETF’s expense?

All participants, including area directors pay their own way (or their sponsor pays their way). But 3 star hotels don’t typically have good enough conference centers.

Also, supporting remote participation in a better way than it works today costs more money than is being expended today. That money has to come from somewhere.

Yoav

> On Feb 14, 2015, at 5:46 PM, info@isoc.org.ec wrote:
> 
> Savings are welcomed instead fees.
> 
> What if you put all that gold bureaucracy in 3 stars hotels and not in 5? 
> Fly economy, have offices in cheap places and countries..
> 
> Being smart saves money and it's fun..  A lot more that looking at the users's pocket.. But off course it's not as easy 
> 
> Carlos
> Internet Society Ecuador
> www.isoc.org.ec
> Síguenos @isocec
> 
>> El 13/2/2015, a las 19:35, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> escribió:
>> 
>> Carlos,
>> 
>> That isn't the point. Somebody has to pay for the things paid for
>> by the existing meeting fees. Suppose that we improve the remote
>> participation technology such that, say, 500 people who would normally
>> attend a meeting stay at home. That's a direct reduction of income by
>> say $350000, three times a year. So the IETF is out of pocket by $1M/year.
>> The actual reduction in meeting costs would be very slight. The money has
>> to come from somewhere.
>> 
>> Does this bother me? Yes, a lot. But it's reality.
>> 
>>  Brian
>> 
>> 
>>> On 14/02/2015 13:13, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote:
>>> Oh I see. Free is not serious enough..
>>> 
>>> Carlos Vera Quintana
>>> 0988141143
>>> Sígueme @cveraq
>>> 
>>>>>> El 13/2/2015, a las 19:03, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> escribió:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 14/02/2015 12:52, info@isoc.org.ec wrote:
>>>>> I guess I miss something. Some "smart" initiative to get
>> money from participants?
>>>> 
>>>> No. A discussion how to make remote participation a serious alternative
>>>> to travelling to meetings, without breaking the budget.
>>>> 
>>>>  Brian
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Internet Society Ecuador
>>>>> www.isoc.org.ec
>>>>> Síguenos @isocec
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> El 13/2/2015, a las 17:47, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> escribió:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 14/02/2015 10:50, Brian Trammell wrote:
>>>>>>> hi Mary, all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 13 Feb 2015, at 22:30, Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In the past I've been nervous about giving remote participation too much
>>>>>>>>> power in part because I'm worried about how that impacts meeting fees
>>>>>>>>> and in part because I value cross-area involvement.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It's possible that we could collect meeting fees from remote attendees, offering a hardship exemption for those who can't afford it.   That would depend on remote attendance working better than it does now, I think, but it would be unfortunate if the main impediment to making remote attendance work well were that we didn't want to lose meeting revenue.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [MB] I totally agree on this latter point.  I'm very conflicted about charging for remote participation, but perhaps something nominal.  It's also quite possible that if we improve the quality, we will get more remote participants.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A requirement (at least at first) to allocate n% of remote participation fees directly to expenses related to the improvement of remote participation would make this a lot more feasible.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But it begins to smell like a poll tax. Some people participate remotely
>>>>>> because they simply can't justify the travel expenditure; if it costs (say)
>>>>>> $200 to participate remotely, that would be enough to keep some people out.
>>>>>> How the Secretariat could possibly validate hardship cases remotely
>>>>>> is beyond me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also, does particpate mean "watch and listen" or "watch, listen and speak"?
>>>>>> I find it hard to imagine paying $200 just to watch and listen.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (Of course, I made up "$200" but it does need to be an amount of money
>>>>>> that's worth collecting, and in that case it will be a significant issue
>>>>>> for, say, a student in a developing country.)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Brian C
>> 
>> 
>