Thinking laterally

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Fri, 27 February 2015 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C201ACC83 for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:44:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.622
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TiopT4SKYImJ for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2E281ACC82 for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lams18 with SMTP id s18so17960388lam.11 for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:44:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=VzEGZ63cSfdy8IUyE7KgJwpH5pOwQBUwXo5cd/U6pnI=; b=kTGhUHsm/ZpzvRxgegY0fa1f2lBMwYF2u95aIYNowzpOEd2oniGUw/WRRwUSLxSVFZ NbJ0yAPTgqCjqZQEL5hZOL6YKsj18osmwj1pGh7/sTBmnJfIi8Tc+A0841H1oScN0TQY QEGBHP3+tAqW118EZb75O0MesMy1XsJFgswRsjVJt8fvulv9BWGggMJC8QJfFk9Gj7Dg U9IX6hrH4+LlaU3PUXQEDY5gLxaapF1o4v9VgreQ90GOqJv+74YnB/5ATrcjNfK3z2oX 2SMnSUlOxLDfwmMdeaVnIuftUm6rIM0IXGxyTJfTXBiajZcD00TXOfpxS4GEs5SBgidM +QsA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id my2mr13043996lbb.55.1425048241230; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:44:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:44:01 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:44:01 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0ep-RTuFGMpDofvoUv3EP1WCkdQ
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Thinking laterally
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c373fa34dc60051012e674
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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:44:04 -0000

Thinking of the remote participant fee. As someone whose travel
restrictions prevent attending in certain parts of the world:

* I have no problem paying a fee but I am not the decision maker
* Paying a fee is better for my CFO
* Not paying a fee is even better for my CFO unless we get something for it

One thing I really would like more of as a remote attendee is video of the
sessions. That is something worth paying for and it is something that we
should have adequate technology base for. If video streaming sessions
really is more than plugging in a camera... we is still doin it wrong.

So kicking in $100 a session for video is a no-brainer. Can make this an
advance payment thing. The video is only guaranteed if at least one person
drops the $100 though and the list of 'sponsors' of the video is only
published after the ability to sign up closes.

If someone wants to add video after the fact they pay a full conference fee
per session.