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

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Personally, I think those of us that can't eat the cookies should be in a
priority queue for the ice cream.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Christer,
>
> I think we should start with an experiment where it clearly counts -
> getting rid of ice cream neutrality.
> That's something where speed really matters ;-)
>
> Alia
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Christer Holmberg <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>   I suggest we get rid of cookie neutrality. The more you pay, the
>> faster access you have to the cookies...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>  ------------------------------
>> From: Nico Williams <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: ‎27/‎02/‎2015 08:08
>> To: Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail] Discussion <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation
>> (was Re: Remote participation fees)
>>
>>   On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>> > Thanks. IMHO participants  in IETF are in two categories: individuals
>> and
>> > companies, both needs to have diversity. I think IETF has shortage in
>>
>> It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are individuals.
>>
>> Many a participant's participation is funded by their employer, and in
>> the process faithfully represent the employer's interests.  But the
>> participants are individual persons.
>>
>> > remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees
>> > because IETF needs more diversity.
>>
>> I doubt it, though I don't know.  Remote *meeting* participation tools
>> have to improve in order to be able to charge much at all for *meeting*
>> participation.  But we'd pay if the tools were good enough and the IETF
>> charged for it, or even just if the IETF chaged for it.
>>
>> Participation on mailing lists should continue to be without charge for
>> all.  No one is proposing otherwise.
>>
>> > However, the issue in my thoughts is not remote or non-remote or
>> ability to
>> > pay or not (diversity items), but the issue can be about benefits, cost
>> and
>> > payment return/outcome. For example, usually remote participants attend
>> but
>> > the outcome is less than others. In business and organisation what
>> matters
>> > is utilization of time, money, and attendance. People in business meet
>> for
>> > many reasons and different methods. All IETF participants attending
>> meeting
>> > physically have different utilization but pay the same fee. I think that
>> > makes limited attendance. Now days Internet services changing to you pay
>> > for what you use only, so could IETF offer that?
>>
>> Fees are the least of the *meeting* participation costs.  Flights and
>> hotels are the large majority of the cost (ignoring cost of opportunity,
>> which may or may not be positive, though I'd assume it's negative in
>> general, else there would be very few meetings indeed).
>>
>> > Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from
>> the
>> > [...]
>>
>> We measure IETF effectiveness and meeting quality in many ways, but we
>> don't rate *meeting* *outcomes* for *individual* participants.  (E.g.,
>> if I don't get my way on a consensus call, that may [or may not!] be a
>> negative outcome for me, but no one is going to cry me a river for it,
>> or even take much notice, and I don't expect any different, nor should
>> anyone.)
>>
>> Nico
>> --
>>
>>
>