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

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> escribió:
>>>> 
>>>> On 14/02/2015 12:52, [e-mail] 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 <[e-mail]> escribió:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 14/02/2015 10:50, Brian Trammell wrote:
>>>>>> hi Mary, all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 13 Feb 2015, at 22:30, Mary Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Sam Hartman <[e-mail]> 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
> 
>