Re: Remote participation fees

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

   Mostly, this is just "+1" -- but I'll expand on a few things...

John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> As a periodic remote participant, some observations:
> 
> First, the big costs to me of a f2f meetin are associated with
> being away from home, getting on airplanes (for some medical
> reasons, especially bad news when the meeting is outside North
> America) and staying in a hotel.  The registration fees have
> crept up well beyond the historical nuisance and cookie charge,
> but are still close to the noise of overall expenses.

   +1

   Note also that visa problems are real! Even those able to clear
the time and cover the expense may find themselves prohibited from
attending in person.

> Second, I would actually prefer to be formally registered and
> paying some reasonable remote participate registration fee.  I'm
> prefer to be recorded as attending sessions I attend and
> participate in, whether by my name going on the blue sheet with
> an asterisk or by some other mechanism.  I don't like the idea
> of others (or even their companies) subsidizing me and would
> prefer to be in a situation in which there were established
> conventions about what, as a remote participant, I have the
> right to expect.i

   +1

> In general, people have been _very_ good about it, but, when the
> audio isn't working for the first session on Monday morning
> (from my observations, a common problem) I believe that I,
> and remote participants who are more shy about complaining than
> I am, should feel that we are entitled to have that situation
> treated as a major, probably session-stopping, problem, on a par
> with the in-room lights or projector not working or no one in
> the room being able to hear a speaker.

   +1

   This problem is endemic with the first Monday sessions, and
would be _so_ easy to fix!

> Similar comments apply to not being able to make a comment or
> ask a question during a meeting because of the way the
> microphone lines are being managed.

   +1

   Being prevented from asking timely questions _is_ the difference
between attendance and participation.

> Now I do think that having some fee waiver systems for hardships
> is important, but actually no more important than having similar
> arrangements for hardship waivers for in-person attendees.

   +1

> And I don't think people who just want to listen (or watch)
> remotely should be charged or asked to identify themselves as
> the price for doing so.

   +1

>...
> But, if nothing else, in the interest of openness and fairness,
> those who are _participating_ remotely ought to be registered
> (like everyone else), identified as participating in specific
> WG sessions when they do so (like everyone else), and that it
> is entirely reasonable that there be a corresponding registration
> fee (as for everyone else).
   +1

   (but that fee need not cover the cookies... ;^)

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>