RE: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)

Christer Holmberg <> Fri, 27 February 2015 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78FD91A8941; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:56:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Waqs-JNy5nqo; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:56:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B681B1A1A8D; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:56:08 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f791c6d00000617b-48-54f01506d722
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id AD.D2.24955.60510F45; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:56:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:56:06 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Nico Williams <>, Abdussalam Baryun <>
Subject: RE: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
Thread-Topic: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
Thread-Index: AQHQUkwH4LF+CobJRkWI3Ap7q1Q1Lp0D8kkAgAAeCMc=
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:56:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>, <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2ESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpnkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3RpdN9EOIwaUVqhbfbrQyWVy7vYLF 4tnG+SwWp64dYXNg8Xh56hyjx85Zd9k9liz5yRTAHMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVMen7V8aCk/YV a/ZNZm1gPGzaxcjJISFgIvHuwX52CFtM4sK99WxdjFwcQgJHGCX6Hn9lh3CWMEo8mDmJuYuR g4NNwEKi+582iCkiEC3xZRcPSC8zkNn/6QbYHGGBPIm2q13MILaIQL7Emp0LoGwriQ9/vjGB tLIIqErsPpUKEuYV8JV4f/8/E8SmmywS2/fOAJvDKaAnsWfhKxYQmxHotu+n1jBB7BKXaPqy khXiZgGJJXvOM0PYohIvH/9jhajJl5jct5kFYoGgxMmZT1gmMIrMQtI+C0nZLCRlEHEDiS/v b0PZ2hLLFr5mhrD1Jbrfn2ZCFl/AyL6KUbQ4tTgpN93IWC+1KDO5uDg/Ty8vtWQTIzDmDm75 rbqD8fIbx0OMAhyMSjy8Bj3vQoRYE8uKK3MPMUpzsCiJ89oZHwoREkhPLEnNTk0tSC2KLyrN SS0+xMjEwSnVwKjy47Gqsu6sVlOvrCenftxU+ps1WXDGn15B1W1/HVTKQg76zyuwvmD1cyNj 99y/nNpmXyd9zgo0/9EQ+OZKa+QxsS2TX6fpOBTola29pFUT78EsP3umihb3DbvzDG1JH/p/ 7zpqJXY7MHeOjizXgo7u56X3lJYE/rz4e1ELb2e4DIN5RqponhJLcUaioRZzUXEiAFfwSdqa AgAA
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, " Discussion" <>
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 06:56:11 -0000

I suggest we get rid of cookie neutrality. The more you pay, the faster access you have to the cookies...



Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Nico Williams<>
Sent: ‎27/‎02/‎2015 08:08
To: Abdussalam Baryun<>
Cc: Discussion<>;<>
Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> Thanks. IMHO participants  in IETF are in two categories: individuals and
> companies, both needs to have diversity. I think IETF has shortage in

It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are individuals.

Many a participant's participation is funded by their employer, and in
the process faithfully represent the employer's interests.  But the
participants are individual persons.

> remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees
> because IETF needs more diversity.

I doubt it, though I don't know.  Remote *meeting* participation tools
have to improve in order to be able to charge much at all for *meeting*
participation.  But we'd pay if the tools were good enough and the IETF
charged for it, or even just if the IETF chaged for it.

Participation on mailing lists should continue to be without charge for
all.  No one is proposing otherwise.

> However, the issue in my thoughts is not remote or non-remote or ability to
> pay or not (diversity items), but the issue can be about benefits, cost and
> payment return/outcome. For example, usually remote participants attend but
> the outcome is less than others. In business and organisation what matters
> is utilization of time, money, and attendance. People in business meet for
> many reasons and different methods. All IETF participants attending meeting
> physically have different utilization but pay the same fee. I think that
> makes limited attendance. Now days Internet services changing to you pay
> for what you use only, so could IETF offer that?

Fees are the least of the *meeting* participation costs.  Flights and
hotels are the large majority of the cost (ignoring cost of opportunity,
which may or may not be positive, though I'd assume it's negative in
general, else there would be very few meetings indeed).

> Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from the
> [...]

We measure IETF effectiveness and meeting quality in many ways, but we
don't rate *meeting* *outcomes* for *individual* participants.  (E.g.,
if I don't get my way on a consensus call, that may [or may not!] be a
negative outcome for me, but no one is going to cry me a river for it,
or even take much notice, and I don't expect any different, nor should