Re: Remote participation fees

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 25 February 2015 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 6C77D1A19F4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 06:05:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 1nJ79SGAH0k3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 06:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FEBB1A039B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 06:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5541FDA01E1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:05:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26CD553E0B1; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 06:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.235.67) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.235.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 06:05:37 -0800
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 06:05:36 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|bf7ae4bd312fe25b80a066e21ee84d67r1ODjZ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5146CB6A-789D-4382-ACE8-9715B6C2AB92@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:05:33 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <41798353-AA92-4476-A0BB-ECD2FEF96BF2@nominum.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> <B90F5E29-06C5-41D1-9F31-1BE42382995F@gmail.com> <CABmDk8=YPZ1W2tTOqP23U2PFVLoDh-3+wwmcA8mpta-Y05op2A@mail.gmail.com> <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <22998.1424015163@sandelman.ca> <DB3PR06MB219529AF019E530B47FBE! 67BF210@DB3PR06MB219.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5146CB6A-789D-4382-ACE8-9715B6C2AB92@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|bf7ae4bd312fe25b80a066e21ee84d67r1ODjZ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5146CB6A-789D-4382-ACE8-9715B6C2AB92@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3SUxkvt_4OUEmOkwOx9SlVhOSTY>
Cc: 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: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:05:44 -0000

On Feb 25, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>; wrote:
> Perhaps charging is introduced for higher quality access (cases b, c), while casual ‘best effort’ remote participation is kept open and free (case a).

If I were setting it up, I'd give everyone the same access whether they can afford to pay or not, and incentivize paying by listing people who pay differently in the proceedings.   If you're an amateur participant who isn't being paid to attend, you shouldn't have to pay, period.

If you are being paid to attend, then we should just say that your company is expected to pay the remote attendee fee.  If they don't, it should be a bit embarrassing for them (not for you!).   In practice I would expect that people who are being paid to attend would just pay the remote attendee fee, because they support the IETF, and there's no reason for them not to.