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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 03 March 2015 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 072041A020A; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 19:06:00 -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 WcQzsVjg2trO; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 19:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 EA9AA1A0141; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 19:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5E1EDA00B1; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:05:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54A353E073; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 19:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 19:05:58 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzwE4K6DK8cH3mhd=0LuQG5MGoLz=rQ5_AxMrhxb-OoyaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 21:00:06 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A818052E-0E19-4231-9141-25C267D1241C@nominum.com>
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> <CAKHUCzwE4K6DK8cH3mhd=0LuQG5MGoLz=rQ5_AxMrhxb-OoyaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/aruqdBMNrJv3GNnUyffW8BI2EOU>
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: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 03:06:00 -0000

On Mar 2, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>; wrote:
> When it's suggested this franchise should extend to remote participants, the conversation almost instantly starts discussing fees for remote participants. I'm personally entirely sure that's simply coincidental timing; a more cynical person might think the two were causally related.

David, when I brought up the idea of fees, for the very first time, I said that it should be possible for people who do not have employee sponsorship to attend remotely without paying a fee.   Several other people have said similar things as well.   I don't think anybody has contradicted this.   So the outcome of this would be that nomcom eligibility would be less expensive.

So I really don't know why this keeps coming up.   I guess there is some real anger out there about the current nomcom situation.   But if that's so, this is part of the process of changing that.   So you might want to consider not shooting the messenger.

The reason I brought up fees is not that I like fees.   It's that running the IETF costs money, and that money currently comes in large part from attendee fees, since the IETF doesn't have a membership and doesn't charge dues.