IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 02 March 2015 01:55 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB2B1A010E; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:55:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0jUgw0FYtvev; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:55:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B05261A0105; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:55:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mb-aye.local (c-98-248-47-249.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.248.47.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t221tVsK015745 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Mar 2015 01:55:33 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <54F3C30C.3080409@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:55:24 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/36.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
References: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0525F9E295@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <CAKHUCzxrLKNSTMYyt1BGO22MbsKtU2NfDvyLEpTZDnudaqgP=w@mail.gmail.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <CADnDZ8-s6anrJhvg1RSf1FFqcfHY9SEOT-xgHCSyh48Rct9aVQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> <CAF4+nEH20ctX8N0XTx4HgKBNNfhj1LE9mGOwH4POM=iad572wQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E1B5544-8638-4DC8-B680-9FF786FE5E26@cis-india.org> <33673443-2DC8-44E9-8B47-AA04B8F09278@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <33673443-2DC8-44E9-8B47-AA04B8F09278@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wHAnx1KX7VgpIOLBJ8MXq1R8HHT69snjb"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WBUT8FanzcpPe6htgnrdlQxtLWQ>
Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" <diversity@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 01:55:42 -0000

You're gonna have to stop using my icescast server if you want to charge
money to access it remotely...

Seriously  though, any number of the components of remote participation
have been provided by volunteers or on a best effort basis even when the
service itself has been professionalized.

On 3/1/15 1:43 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2015, at 10:44 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org>
> wrote:
>> Perhaps dropping the idea of imposing a fee for remote participants
>> might help? Or not imposing a fee for non-financed individual
>> participants? Or not imposing a fee for participants from MICs and
>> LICs?
> 
> I think everybody who's stated an opinion on this has said that there
> would be no fee or a small fee which could be waived for people who
> aren't being supported to attend.   MIC/LIC status would certainly be
> a relevant factor.
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email