Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]

Rich Kulawiec <> Sat, 14 February 2015 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A2A1A0469 for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:30:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3L8OpAy4OMG2 for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B7C01A0395 for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.9/8.14.9) with SMTP id t1ENU1BB027938 for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:30:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:30:00 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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 23:30:06 -0000

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 04:17:05PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Fewer F2F meetings per year would be one way to accomplish this:
> encourage more interim virtual meetings, and then cut back to two or
> one f2f meeting per year.

At most.  Of all possible organizations, the IETF should be
best-positioned to figure out how to enable broad/deep participation in
virtual-only meetings.  Travel is very expensive (not just in terms of
money, but in terms of time) and increasingly hazardous to the security
and privacy of anyone crossing nearly any border or even just getting
on an airplane.  Harrassment, detainment, and invasive searches are
now commonplace, as are the confiscation and copying of disk drives,
thumb drives, phones and anything else that can hold data. [1]

This may not be a big deal to those whose income and/or support make
the cost inconsequential, or to those whose nationality reduces the
risks at borders, or to those with the technical savvy to avoid having
their private data offloaded.  But to those who aren't so wealthy
(or supported), and to those whose nationality almost guarantees them
unlimited hassles, it may well be.  Yet those are the very people
whose diversity may well enrich the IETF and who might potentially
stand to benefit the most from extensive interaction.


[1] Not to mention thefts, assaults, and false arrests on completely
fabricated charges, e.g.:

	Lawsuit: TSA Supervisor Got Traveler Arrested For Bogus 'Terroristic Threat' Charge, Lied About Incident In Court