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

Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> Sun, 01 March 2015 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <pranesh@cis-india.org>
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 AE2971B35D6; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:44:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 e7PAgqr6__aB; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:44:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.prakash.im (prakash.im [162.243.72.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F8321B2E49; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:44:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.prakash.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BE5D602F3; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 21:14:44 +0530 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.cis-india.org; s=mail; t=1425224685; bh=wZC5A/J1ylpIX2DJDwQP44m3qI1tmThvzLn2myTFufg=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:CC; b=VZnNaYJGZTHiLKrB4SAIBPpekoWIo/lx4vVWfY1mygmSc+jBwnsBzR82HCaG2eZJC R+2efVYZLbEHUK2+v3Ct7bYswm3CI0UhQuDLA+hndy6cNK9sMtzYJwu6dl5sIJB96f H0tUzefFWWZ+O+I/zmVSLs9euyhWtZfweHCRnbnQ=
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEH20ctX8N0XTx4HgKBNNfhj1LE9mGOwH4POM=iad572wQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0525F9E295@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <CAKHUCzxrLKNSTMYyt1BGO22MbsKtU2NfDvyLEpTZDnudaqgP=w@mail.gmail.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <CADnDZ8-s6anrJhvg1RSf1FFqcfHY9SEOT-xgHCSyh48Rct9aVQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> <CAF4+nEH20ctX8N0XTx4HgKBNNfhj1LE9mGOwH4POM=iad572wQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
From: Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 16:44:41 +0100
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E1B5544-8638-4DC8-B680-9FF786FE5E26@cis-india.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vIY3-Rr-EHC4wgg5vyY1ia3IUQM>
Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" <diversity@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 15:44:48 -0000

Perhaps dropping the idea of imposing a fee for remote participants might help? Or not imposing a fee for non-financed individual participants? Or not imposing a fee for participants from MICs and LICs? 

The thread topic might provide hints, Donald.

I hate to note it, but one of the few on-topic discussions on this list quickly degenerated into meaningless puns and banter. 

Is there anything positive that's come out of this list? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical device. 

On 1 March 2015 4:26:42 pm GMT+01:00, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Pranesh Prakash
><pranesh@cis-india.org> wrote:
>> Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> [2015-02-28 21:07:56 -0500]:
>>>
>>> So, if you prefer to say that I'm still not acting "in my personal
>>> capacity", very well; but I'd like to know what the difference is
>(in
>>> operationalized terms, please).
>>
>> As you seem to have noted, I believe funding to take part in IETF
>> proceedings (and physical meetings) is the key.
>>
>> Not because it "influences" the views you put forward at the IETF. 
>(It may
>> or may not do so.)
>>
>> But because it enables you to participate more steadily in the IETF
>than
>> someone who is not similarly funded.  That ability to participate has
>all
>> manners of implications, including the ability to be chair of WGs,
>etc.
>
>Your position seems to be that persons with more resources can, if
>they choose to use those resources, have more influence than those
>with less resources. So what is your proposed solutions? That the IETF
>should impose a world-wide re-distributive tax scheme so that everyone
>in the world has the same resources at their dispose? I would question
>the practicality of that.
>
>Thanks,
>Donald
>=============================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
> d3e3e3@gmail.com
>
>> --
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.