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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 14 February 2015 00:03 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 C82531A0360 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:03:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ATjI15nug5Xd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:03:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com (mail-pd0-f178.google.com [209.85.192.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2045E1A008F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:03:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pdev10 with SMTP id v10so22483227pde.7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:03:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VnosuRBavrAGyXpqbl5z8tkYtbyiWMpDtkXgt3eRfFY=; b=BrrlavvjzfI0g8H54v7tYjGYte7AP/hDKt1Em+MVjz1J7WgQ2BhMNzvJ8wYsFEpRWW Bb5yKsC9CbmzmSS6wIiJEjJHNRRz/0IjXWjREg+eA0ZzuLaYRUlfZMTyPAYpCMKol0ow AYICweCmE756iemoomK4RkB4MSINgZmeptQ0EuD2QmBAun+oTOnodSAJBE+fthS82dUe HURpoNCBWIlaWcIJ6UXXsa8N3W9p43/kr9ROWEIaNN11hGeZQodkMof4aZOLDGM/VmhE gt86Z/8R89G+xX9RxN6GuI0AD0XKJ2tLnYTsU5dnNzVwfYkAVwdJbX8voH7BewxQu7Dn J9jw==
X-Received: by 10.68.111.65 with SMTP id ig1mr19824984pbb.38.1423872191779; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:03:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6310:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6310:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id uu10sm7743433pbc.52.2015.02.13.16.03.07 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DE90C6.6030609@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 13:03:18 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "info@isoc.org.ec" <info@isoc.org.ec>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DBD71C.20101@joelhalpern.com> <26803.1423772214@sandelman.ca> <tsla90ikh85.fsf@mit.edu> <37661D4B-1842-4890-88FB-2A7B13CDC884@nominum.com> <CABmDk8m1KuSs8os9V7fcYOJC2O4yMb6dRFer+nEPBTTSHtey9Q@mail.gmail.com> <31891031-4628-49CD-B66C-38A3BD787B70@trammell.ch> <54DE7F09.8030500@gmail.com> <C5FC0DB6-82F8-4C38-ABFD-D5D9A6E65933@isoc.org.ec>
In-Reply-To: <C5FC0DB6-82F8-4C38-ABFD-D5D9A6E65933@isoc.org.ec>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ddq9i4Lbo_n_ZUSGNkyX_z1xSh0>
Cc: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 00:03:15 -0000

On 14/02/2015 12:52, info@isoc.org.ec wrote:
> I guess I miss something. Some "smart" initiative to get money from participants?

No. A discussion how to make remote participation a serious alternative
to travelling to meetings, without breaking the budget.

    Brian

> 
> Internet Society Ecuador
> www.isoc.org.ec
> Síguenos @isocec
> 
>> El 13/2/2015, a las 17:47, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> escribió:
>>
>>> On 14/02/2015 10:50, Brian Trammell wrote:
>>> hi Mary, all,
>>>
>>>> On 13 Feb 2015, at 22:30, Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>> In the past I've been nervous about giving remote participation too much
>>>>> power in part because I'm worried about how that impacts meeting fees
>>>>> and in part because I value cross-area involvement.
>>>>
>>>> It's possible that we could collect meeting fees from remote attendees, offering a hardship exemption for those who can't afford it.   That would depend on remote attendance working better than it does now, I think, but it would be unfortunate if the main impediment to making remote attendance work well were that we didn't want to lose meeting revenue.
>>>>
>>>> [MB] I totally agree on this latter point.  I'm very conflicted about charging for remote participation, but perhaps something nominal.  It's also quite possible that if we improve the quality, we will get more remote participants.
>>>
>>> A requirement (at least at first) to allocate n% of remote participation fees directly to expenses related to the improvement of remote participation would make this a lot more feasible.
>>
>> But it begins to smell like a poll tax. Some people participate remotely
>> because they simply can't justify the travel expenditure; if it costs (say)
>> $200 to participate remotely, that would be enough to keep some people out.
>> How the Secretariat could possibly validate hardship cases remotely
>> is beyond me.
>>
>> Also, does particpate mean "watch and listen" or "watch, listen and speak"?
>> I find it hard to imagine paying $200 just to watch and listen.
>>
>> (Of course, I made up "$200" but it does need to be an amount of money
>> that's worth collecting, and in that case it will be a significant issue
>> for, say, a student in a developing country.)
>>
>>    Brian C
>>
>>
>