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

Dave Cridland <> Mon, 02 March 2015 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A0F1A8AAC for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:20:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.022
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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 CqoXaiA-zLpq for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:20:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E536A1A0024 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:20:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id va2so34932752obc.6 for <>; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:20:56 -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=dSfHr7+bkRe5vKeop+/YiOJDCvjR/4scU37eAT7Ji40=; b=Kz9POxb3ndvVHoq2DJtnTM80puszNxoDK4RJIjplGqLwH+aA+8lM59jC59dnvnQTal zgtrBProbyH/mDVkRT1N0ql8KXmtC4bdkuYHka6Q0bhKnCxYZZEJeLD3DCWVtQh0rlKM Gj1Ns8S+IMerYsm21Gc5sYgNxCLFnr5Lz/JoQ=
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=dSfHr7+bkRe5vKeop+/YiOJDCvjR/4scU37eAT7Ji40=; b=Aiq+raU7qH5xCPR4QVJeW+Aczsgd/+YG9YgBAQZJHOJ55us4uuoqapWnOBpjZ8MkH9 7VVNLKUsplRspHTjVzQBgqHlnwtJxS8IKfg+Rqi0vlWBKYND2UZoNwgwqkW+2Zs+HE+v igwyNDrHFD4roeZbPdrFEx0vSRXkSDV5nGFi+F2LxsH6xApV4BioRNjvN/LT4o/s5fvz 3a6CxIP4DVM6h6j9PnhrJWZm4GY3E7m2AbXPBNuhGX+1QVJuddi2Ba8m2/gmmtmKZnLf Bl+dcvT6YnfUJkyyhoLOBzaNlURmkYZhNfz/vHNKu/PEbfCJjj/CrzhjLIUP78T/Y+Oy 3kxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmRjhEtPjV4ctPmoMb4s04xZAqU5axZj7t126C+KkFQDco1fjsUNjUagXFi3cUgeR7dc9Nt
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id g186mr19988962oia.86.1425338456187; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:20:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:20:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 23:20:56 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
From: Dave Cridland <>
To: Donald Eastlake <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cfe5c5dbc0d0510567844
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, " 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:20:58 -0000

On 1 March 2015 at 15:26, Donald Eastlake <> 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.