Remote participant fees (was : Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 26 May 2019 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3862C120167; Sun, 26 May 2019 14:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.277
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RDNS_NONE=1.274, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 tYC7IHioHEZZ; Sun, 26 May 2019 14:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa3.jck.com (unknown [65.175.133.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 962271200EB; Sun, 26 May 2019 14:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp5.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.153] helo=JcK-HP5.jck.com) by bsa3.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1hV0uR-000MVA-D5; Sun, 26 May 2019 17:42:27 -0400
Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 17:42:22 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@gmail.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
cc: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Subject: Remote participant fees (was : Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev)
Message-ID: <133B3EC1DF7770E01F8AF85C@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOp4FwTOU481VW0XsWGFOL52+gT2zEL37ut0ysROVWiysyfOVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f5834466-8f40-42bd-82d8-4dcb7d418859@www.fastmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190509105617.0c08ef60@elandnews.com> <e854adaf-1ead-41d0-95bf-df56cb5a5914@www.fastmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190514234822.0bc461f0@elandnews.com> <15BCE05FEA1EEA6AD0E7E5BD@PSB> <6.2.5.6.2.20190516103829.11f9fb18@elandnews.com> <E85C84CF-DB0B-410E-A0B2-A7C7E705E469@kaloom.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190518141450.1163e590@elandnews.com> <82E6BD6B-41F4-4827-8E18-3FF63511DFEA@gmail.com> <EC966FE1-C1EE-453F-A66E-61B007293792@episteme.net> <20190525230825.GB10378@mit.edu> <CAOp4FwTOU481VW0XsWGFOL52+gT2zEL37ut0ysROVWiysyfOVA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c2mNyms9U8pRgIOaNsqzTEVebmo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 26 May 2019 21:42:38 -0000

Loganaden, Ted, and others,

Remote participation fees have been suggested on and off for
years, with the main motivations being providing a small bar
against various types of silliness, people posing as others or
as multiple people, etc.  I've been one of those suggesting them
for those and other reasons, including allowing a small bit more
authentication.  I don't recall any proposals that seriously
suggested such fees would provide significant secretariat
support and/or support for the costs of running Meetecho, etc.,
because most ways of calculating such fees would be enough to
drive most potential remote participants, even from
industrialized countries, away.   However, that has come up a
few times too. 

At no time have the IESG, the former IAD or IAOC, or others
seemed interested in taking the topic up.  Should they do so, we
can then have a conversation about formulas and charges.  I'd
predict those discussions would lead to a far more complex
formula than anyone really wants to deal with (e.g., something
based on cost of living or median income in various countries),
at least until things settled down on something with
encouragement for exceptions or exemptions when needed (much as
we have now).  Perhaps anticipation of that likely long and
painful discussion is one of the reasons why at least some of
those actors have not been interested in pursing such fees.
But, please, lets keep that discussion as separate as possible
from the rather narrow scope of  draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
(hence the change in the subject line).  If someone does feel
this is the time to take it up, let's see a proposal in I-D form.

best,
   john



--On Sunday, 26 May, 2019 12:54 +0400 Loganaden Velvindron
<loganaden@gmail.com> wrote:

>> People can disagree about how likely that redchan or gab.com
>> participants would try to game the system in the future
>> (perhaps it's not likely, but the Linux Kernel development
>> community has not been immune from their interest), but
>> requiring a real registration fee would no doubt decrease
>> that risk.  Futhermore, since we've already decided that it's
>> OK to require a registration fee for in-person attendance,
>> requiring something similar for remote participants --- since
>> the claim is that they should have all of the rights and
>> responsibilities pertaining thereto --- would seem only fair.
>> 
>> 
>> [Speaking as the organizer of an ietf remote hub from
>> Mauritius]
> 
> We've been contributed patches for TLS 1.3, IPv6, DNS, http451
> in open source
> projects during the IETF hackathons. We're also working on a
> few drafts. We have a lot
> of high school and university students among ourselves.
> 
> We're OK with paying the registration fees provided that they
> are reasonable.
> 
> There are countries such as Madagascar who are trying to
> organize their own IETF
> hubs but their Cost of living is lower than us. What is
> reasonable to us might be expensive
> to them.
> 
> Could there be a remote registration fee calculated per
> country ?