Re: [Manycouches] I-D Action: draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-07.txt

["Livingood, Jason" <[e-mail]>]

> Were that to not happen (a bad outcome IMO), then I'd
suggest submitting a minimal-length replacement that only
states the principle ("there must always exist a zero-fee
remote access scheme such that use of the scheme isn't
visible to other participants").

I wonder if we might step back for a moment and ask what problem we're still trying to solve with a document on remote fees. It seems to me that the document was intending to document a desire that there should be a no cost remote access option for regular IETF meetings. Given that SHMOO and general IETF discussion on that topic resulted in the LLC statement at https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-on-remote-meeting-participation/ - what problem remains to be solved? It rather seems that the desire of the community was noted and adopted as one of several principles. (pasted below)

1. Anyone who wishes to participate in the IETF should be able to, and the more people participating, the better.
2. It is important to be welcoming and supportive of all participants to the IETF, especially new participants. 
3. We should continue to provide a remote participation option for IETF meetings and continuously improve our remote participation tools.  
4. There should continue to be a documented and well communicated process for participants to obtain a free registration.
5. The long-term aspirational goal is for all participation in the IETF to be free, including IETF Meetings.

> Early input is great, calling
out a published BCP as bogus is fine, but having the LLC
stick in its oar during the final stages of document
approval is not ok IMO, unless there's some emergency
reason for that.

It wasn’t only in the final stages and since the LLC was expected to follow the document it seemed germane. It is probably not worth a rehashing of the history, but concerns were raised much earlier in the process; that's water under the bridge now. I don’t see why the WG can't simply 'declare victory' on the issue based on the fact that it led directly to https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-on-remote-meeting-participation/. 

Jason