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

Dave Cridland <> Sun, 15 February 2015 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658A51A3B9F for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:28:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O9u2tzOTu_Sn for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94F981A0097 for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id gq1so35726057obb.2 for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:27:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UgqqbQxLH2OiGqdV223LZoPokkF1D/V2s5MAqc4JUGA=; b=iKh8jDPByMQMJtny2N3cG0JQx6HUJNK5deZNJap9W/LZTZEIYtHWTUAUr++TQKqXiA 5gfX7RPJ/Dcmy8wxAFR61IYZ3QrhKndxJdaQbCeE7g4S3ZW41ou9pLyUky+RNC/OEF+W fzWa++1RJCbJ0Z1HZGZYxjzVFD8CVcoAwc7qU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UgqqbQxLH2OiGqdV223LZoPokkF1D/V2s5MAqc4JUGA=; b=fcM5OeBZEv4AtDQNcU1sDW6Xxs7MG4iTe8tw/VEFz9CvwyVykvlJQxL7qFDbDIgkoU tF2PifGqmgaGvIXqqp3olmbZoTdgoiGyB9RqAn3AoDrgfDMK9uYt79y6A4g6WTbC6hl8 fpby3pxbuhYz5Ne457OzW1TZ+DUjx0VIq7nK/i8/I/EXm1sBDWL3Gmp1zV0tLfZ9XSx4 bWeEzkGgNFA9v+UE9+y9GiWTUPvoSxwRZmOcsqXEm370fKDoJY4OoLhs465ui4hLkFDF QukDlSQecI1WwaqZ33l9IYxkfaIp9VR7YQvdQgKsNXRglKNIFr3C6fAiSqrz9wFhJXhl zETg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkCcP3Iz4JcA4e0dJdIvv3/qNXzsquRGWQ4XjHSnvlS3BkIZAaAzDIQgPd97CRCHQxIqiBX
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id d64mr12271598oia.55.1424024878775; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:27:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 18:27:58 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
From: Dave Cridland <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ce0060d1c47050f24a1fc
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <>, " Discussion" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 18:28:01 -0000

On 15 Feb 2015 13:48, "Ted Lemon" <> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2015, at 4:30 AM, Dave Cridland <> wrote:
> > Charging the people we want to be contributing just doesn't seem
logical to me.
> This isn't really what's happening, though.   What's happening is that
corporations tend to have budgets for things like conference attendance,
and IETF is getting participants to tap those budgets to partially fund the
organization.   The idea isn't really for participants who are contributing
to have to pay, and we do have scholarship programs, although it would be
unusual for a non-student to be sponsored in one of these programs.
> Trying to turn the funding scheme into something "fair" isn't going to
work, because the people who really benefit from this are users of the
internet, and they don't even know who we are.   They are not going to fund
us.   If we really think what we are doing is important, it's not
unreasonable to expect us to try to figure out how to fund it.
> The idea of a fee for off-site attendees is not to make them pay, but to
provide a way for them to get their employers to pay, or for them to pay.
 I realize this is a subtle distinction, but the point is that if you think
what the IETF does is important, providing funding from an available budget
is a good way to support it, and we have not yet identified any better way
to support it.   If you think that asking attendees to take on this
responsibility is inappropriate, then you should probably be thinking
seriously about an alternative proposal for how to fund the organization.

I agree with everything you've written there. I don't think the IETF is pay
to play, as such, and I think funding this kind of thing is particularly
challenging at this scale.

But still, I'd rather avoid seeing participants as a revenue stream, so
yes, seriously looking at an alternative funding structure that doesn't
involve neither any non existent benefactors nor charging contributors
would be interesting.