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

Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> Mon, 02 March 2015 23:56 UTC

Return-Path: <pranesh@cis-india.org>
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 567281A8AD9; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:56:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 EwtlnRNdsJPX; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:56:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.prakash.im (prakash.im [162.243.72.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5DE51A8AC2; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:56:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.prakash.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7041600F8; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 05:26:54 +0530 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.cis-india.org; s=mail; t=1425340615; bh=UwLwACwI2kcGLjevOr28GaZM6SELUvkZHBDetS3+X4M=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=vGmXnW6NLi6mz+a32PnyJpkcDOFz6tlsDuOvsRkj+wFl74CWiFxu6hnNvYX3ZLwUu h6warkvtoK4tIfJj5NHFYFP9X28r7xupR316JbTkG1MLb0Mdc9ofeXfiRNeb9uEzib baYSs0G381PxuXiYC7Kh1fh1Ylct1uQczR/aZDGc=
Message-ID: <54F4F8BD.7090803@cis-india.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:56:45 +0100
From: Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org>
Organization: Centre for Internet and Society
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
References: <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> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> <CAF4+nEH20ctX8N0XTx4HgKBNNfhj1LE9mGOwH4POM=iad572wQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKHUCzwE4K6DK8cH3mhd=0LuQG5MGoLz=rQ5_AxMrhxb-OoyaA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzwE4K6DK8cH3mhd=0LuQG5MGoLz=rQ5_AxMrhxb-OoyaA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ueinmSIMGoSiS6UUPkbvKL9uGq3ik5vWb"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/D4bCd9v_CuKKyxFUAsdvzkn6Klk>
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:56:58 -0000

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> [2015-03-02 23:20:56 +0000]:
> On 1 March 2015 at 15:26, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Your position seems to be that persons with more resources can, if
>> they choose to use those resources, have more influence than those
>> with less resources.
>
>
> I suspect it can be reworded to a simpler statement.
>
> Currently, to obtain "NomCom eligibility" (which means more than simply
> eligibility to volunteer for NomCom), it requires actual money being spent
> either by, or on behalf of, the participant. A little under $1500 needs to
> be paid to the IETF each year (based on $700 for each meeting, 3 out of 5
> meetings, and the requirement that the remaining meeting would probably
> need to be attended also making it average two meetings per year). That
> ignores the additional costs of travel and accommodation.
>
> When it's suggested this franchise should extend to remote participants,
> the conversation almost instantly starts discussing fees for remote
> participants. I'm personally entirely sure that's simply coincidental
> timing; a more cynical person might think the two were causally related.
>
> There's soft implications of being well funded (I suspect, John's comments
> notwithstanding, that it is essentially impossible to have a reasonable
> paid job and act as AD in one's "spare time" these days), but really, it
> isn't a matter of trying to solve these issues absolutely or not at all -
> it's actually acceptable to consider ways of simply reducing the gap, even
> if we admit we cannot eliminate it.
>
> Certainly, imposing remote participation fees doesn't leap out at me as a
> way to *improve* the disparity.

Thank you, Dave.  That's exactly what I was intending when I wrote, 
"That ability to participate has all manners of implications, including 
the ability to be chair of WGs, etc.", and is much better worded than I 
possibly could have managed.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org
twitter:https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash