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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, February 14, 2015 18:43 +0200 Yoav Nir
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Also, supporting remote participation in a better way than it
> works today costs more money than is being expended today.
> That money has to come from somewhere.

As a periodic remote participant, some observations:

First, the big costs to me of a f2f meetin are associated with
being away from home, getting on airplanes (for some medical
reasons, especially bad news when the meeting is outside North
America) and staying in a hotel.  The registration fees have
crept up well beyond the historical nuisance and cookie charge,
but are still close to the noise of overall expenses.

Second, I would actually prefer to be formally registered and
paying some reasonable remote participate registration fee.  I'm
prefer to be recorded as attending sessions I attend and
participate in, whether by my name going on the blue sheet with
an asterisk or by some other mechanism.  I don't like the idea
of others (or even their companies) subsidizing me and would
prefer to be in a situation in which there were established
conventions about what, as a remote participant, I have the
right to expect.  In general, people have been _very_ good about
it, but, when the audio isn't working for the first session on
Monday morning (from my observations, a common problem) I
believe that I, and remote participants who are more shy about
complaining than I am, should feel that we are entitled to have
that situation treated as a major, probably session-stopping,
problem, on a par with the in-room lights or projector not
working or no one in the room being able to hear a speaker.
Similar comments apply to not being able to make a comment or
ask a question during a meeting because of the way the
microphone lines are being managed.

Now I do think that having some fee waiver systems for hardships
is important, but actually no more important than having similar
arrangements for hardship waivers for in-person attendees.  And
I don't think people who just want to listen (or watch) remotely
should be charged or asked to identify themselves as the price
for doing so.   Nothing prevents someone who doesn't way to pay
the fee or ask from a waiver fro listening and then taking
issues up on the relevant mailing list either.  But, if nothing
else, in the interest of openness and fairness, those who are
_participating_ remotely ought to be registered (like everyone
else), identified as participating in specific WG sessions when
they do so (like everyone else), and that it is entirely
reasonable that there be a corresponding registration fee (as
for everyone else).

    john