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

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Fri, 27 February 2015 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@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 EE5AE1A01AE; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:57:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 R8jrMbHRDd-j; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:57:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22a.google.com (mail-ob0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a]) (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 97E041A012D; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:57:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id va2so18726110obc.1; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:57:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Y+k0JoCVeK243ObsOeMN87Xd1UYvy8aczvgDB9cQDX0=; b=k6skM0qzcCnJ0MV6kO+XImL6Xcy2TvfZwithFEvd+0Z0pmr6IzegT6rsJ5XY6gBw4h 75iHfW+YG9JBtjyC59OkoKhQPuwGi1Hrcf95EUksLbV5Qr9iEmdLvNAvwUmoIfg5FZzm OigV6j4gYs1qB2nA3uvWKF67VAjelTfjOZthteQJoSV/AXBVNOQpJZe6g2a+7ozSVZCE X8fUW9FcLfp8cF8Yt3wIu+4eC1edjOnK0X/BmlJIPci6Idrd0C6QNcMCss3cIwHn++se XldKa+7jxb65Hqgxi6aLECv+EW6dTRxN/rI4XFeV20QT/Ai/VhxTUNBwpnDtZuEGHKbc 78Og==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.97.130 with SMTP id v124mr9784686oib.34.1425049032896; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:57:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.97.135 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:57:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <m2h9uokmij.wl%randy@psg.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0525F9E295@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <CAKHUCzxrLKNSTMYyt1BGO22MbsKtU2NfDvyLEpTZDnudaqgP=w@mail.gmail.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <CADnDZ8-s6anrJhvg1RSf1FFqcfHY9SEOT-xgHCSyh48Rct9aVQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:57:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rc7QHbSFxoksseyPBOMBucYRYHZGiWH_RJUU8=Def_PkA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d596664b62f05101315c6
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9hW_mi9JvTqrdiP8djjbwvxT--A>
Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" <diversity@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:57:16 -0000

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 <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> 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 <nico@cryptonector.com>
> Sent: ‎27/‎02/‎2015 08:08
> To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>rg>; diversity@ietf.org
> 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
> --
>
>