Re: Thinking laterally

Abdussalam Baryun <> Sat, 28 February 2015 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1351A0019 for <>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:29:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2i7RqpS4TqCO for <>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D7851A0018 for <>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n8so17764987qaq.3 for <>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:29:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=oOwP+HKOTWHlpEvIp26DNMwouxHboqmei9OfoGiejuU=; b=PrYNDNMWLCRHdUak21WE/RjhtcLw9Q1XWPazqeWVRA5k9TLm4bfodc3NnqjdMfKeoH 3pm3k3zEC4ZHDwZC4ftUDqe0ev/GQR+nLkrT2j8c7eScqQusFeq6eYLMpvFjGFh6R6pT FOX4hXt2T4tgQwyp8RerfIIUgSqxf+q7As5C5MYri5/Z/cg6KGXeibz3YImj/gQ3tNMw QVJMjcyEzrqqWCYtJGRteUaHx1Jw3MJ4nfeFk1OUuMkjxaLSthhgr9XpF+MqHX7svRay Z9cLZ4/V338eqodo8/jD+pe0q4fFlYlXzY65myWrb2tDFJwIVBxeypX7MFfiLVpIGzT9 QTJg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id l35mr38490772qge.47.1425158991312; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:29:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:29:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:29:51 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Thinking laterally
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a9ca26cff5b05102caf1e
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
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: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:29:53 -0000

On Friday, February 27, 2015, Phillip Hallam-Baker <>

> Thinking of the remote participant fee. As someone whose travel
> restrictions prevent attending in certain parts of the world:
> * I have no problem paying a fee but I am not the decision maker
> * Paying a fee is better for my CFO
> * Not paying a fee is even better for my CFO unless we get something for it

I agree with you. IETF should always consider the full community within the
world not only few regions or majority participants' region.

> One thing I really would like more of as a remote attendee is video of the
> sessions. That is something worth paying for and it is something that we
> should have adequate technology base for. If video streaming sessions
> really is more than plugging in a camera... we is still doin it wrong.
I think IETF can provide such services but need to do some procedures that
make the rules for that to save flexibility.

> If someone wants to add video after the fact they pay a full conference
> fee per session.

The fees proposed should not be per session because the f2f attendees don't
pay fees per session. The minimum We have is per day fees.