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

Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq@gmail.com> Sat, 14 February 2015 00:14 UTC

Return-Path: <cveraq@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 D1ED71A00A9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:14:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 unPVjAFQ0Iaq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:14:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-x234.google.com (mail-qa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::234]) (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 B8A821A036D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:14:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id v10so14862509qac.11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:14:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=r9dW9NMyFVKQGi0Xq1rhaZxb8F99417gWh+wwdFCV/U=; b=lpMYCuLGjs9ZZKZez4ONTD88fwUBsLxDf5r95Wa3wKdOMgpHZhabzQ8CzBJyvL9oMT ZGNIdW0BZ9ZMKbaRNJGa2mAT6miw9sXRqvRCixYnOcVX5kGBa5cIBOflxissOcbYJ6q1 oTWr4Ue9qzFgDAKwO2fyNs5+RJ9qTIbz09QGLFTng/509c4fB9dVn2X3DcUHpsUPoAU4 t68A8RO2omVyQ9aLzgrvLmWuiGkTQPe0ANiMQ/fo0tTtjWHkQtIiEYqvnIkgtm4BUaWX c7rgr4w40LqvWeBTUeANqOgvQmiduEZcNb/XEovQDZ7MHtd6uamIG4VQHr7kanVsC4J9 VMVg==
X-Received: by 10.229.131.138 with SMTP id x10mr16297805qcs.25.1423872840987; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:14:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([186.178.190.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k11sm8345691qaj.17.2015.02.13.16.13.58 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:13:59 -0800 (PST)
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> <54DE90C6.6030609@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <54DE90C6.6030609@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E39AF4E0-58AB-4249-8A37-3D1CD2D5A691@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B466)
From: Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:13:55 -0500
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/opBsheJByyjOkDj_hYX0vp5LY9k>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:03:59 -0800
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, 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 00:14:04 -0000

Oh I see. Free is not serious enough..

Carlos Vera Quintana
0988141143
Sígueme @cveraq

> El 13/2/2015, a las 19:03, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> escribió:
> 
>> 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
>