On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Kevin P. Fleming
<kpfleming(_at_)digium(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 10/20/2011 03:02 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
On Oct 20, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
One thing to consider is charging for this service
I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get better
remote participation capability when I am unable to travel to the location
chosen.
I would much rather pay $200-$300 to have good remote attendance
capability (video etc.) than get by on 'free'.
This would be assuming that there would be some markup on the remote
attendance cost to finance the secretariat etc.
I disagree. If the remote participation service is high quality, it should
require the same registration fee structure as on-site participation.
Why? Presumably a significant portion of the registration fee goes to pay
the venue for use of its space, for food and beverages, and other costs that
remote participants don't incur.
I think it is fair to say that the costs will clearly be _different_.
Remote participants won't get cookies,
but might require technical support, for example. I think it is too
early to say how that
should be reflected in charging for a premium service.
Regards
Marshall
--
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: kfleming(_at_)digium(_dot_)com | SIP: kpfleming(_at_)digium(_dot_)com
| Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf