Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Christer,

I think we should start with an experiment where it clearly counts -
getting rid of ice cream neutrality.
That's something where speed really matters ;-)

Alia

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>   I suggest we get rid of cookie neutrality. The more you pay, the faster
> access you have to the cookies...
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
>  ------------------------------
> From: Nico Williams <[e-mail]>
> Sent: ‎27/‎02/‎2015 08:08
> To: Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] Discussion <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation
> (was Re: Remote participation fees)
>
>   On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> > Thanks. IMHO participants  in IETF are in two categories: individuals and
> > companies, both needs to have diversity. I think IETF has shortage in
>
> It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are individuals.
>
> Many a participant's participation is funded by their employer, and in
> the process faithfully represent the employer's interests.  But the
> participants are individual persons.
>
> > remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees
> > because IETF needs more diversity.
>
> I doubt it, though I don't know.  Remote *meeting* participation tools
> have to improve in order to be able to charge much at all for *meeting*
> participation.  But we'd pay if the tools were good enough and the IETF
> charged for it, or even just if the IETF chaged for it.
>
> Participation on mailing lists should continue to be without charge for
> all.  No one is proposing otherwise.
>
> > However, the issue in my thoughts is not remote or non-remote or ability
> to
> > pay or not (diversity items), but the issue can be about benefits, cost
> and
> > payment return/outcome. For example, usually remote participants attend
> but
> > the outcome is less than others. In business and organisation what
> matters
> > is utilization of time, money, and attendance. People in business meet
> for
> > many reasons and different methods. All IETF participants attending
> meeting
> > physically have different utilization but pay the same fee. I think that
> > makes limited attendance. Now days Internet services changing to you pay
> > for what you use only, so could IETF offer that?
>
> Fees are the least of the *meeting* participation costs.  Flights and
> hotels are the large majority of the cost (ignoring cost of opportunity,
> which may or may not be positive, though I'd assume it's negative in
> general, else there would be very few meetings indeed).
>
> > Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from the
> > [...]
>
> We measure IETF effectiveness and meeting quality in many ways, but we
> don't rate *meeting* *outcomes* for *individual* participants.  (E.g.,
> if I don't get my way on a consensus call, that may [or may not!] be a
> negative outcome for me, but no one is going to cry me a river for it,
> or even take much notice, and I don't expect any different, nor should
> anyone.)
>
> Nico
> --
>
>