Re: Remote participation fees

John Leslie <> Sat, 14 February 2015 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D553E1A0369 for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:06:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.61
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_61=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RkZCPOHAk3fC for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFED61A0364 for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 104) id 8A47BC94BE; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:06:10 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:06:10 -0500
From: John Leslie <>
To: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees
Message-ID: <20150214230610.GT14296@verdi>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: <>
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, 14 Feb 2015 23:06:27 -0000

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

John C Klensin <> 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.


   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


> 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.


   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.


   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.


> 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.


> 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).

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

John Leslie <>