ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IETF registration fee?

2013-07-11 03:38:42
Hello Douglas,

Dear Josh,

I agree. A single day fee should also be considered in conjunction with the 
increased status of remote participation underwritten by a much smaller 
remote meeting fee.  It seems there is a general reluctance to consider 
schemes aimed at capturing face-to-face meetings in a realtime fashion 
permitting moderated realtime interaction with selected network entities. 
Experiments with things like WebEx and others involve a fair amount of 
network resources or they offer poor results.  An audio/video bridge suitable 
for many simultaneous participants is difficult to solve in a generic manner. 
 The real question is simultaneous participation in conjunction with 
telephone bridges really necessary?

As regards remote participation 'experiments', we have been working for years 
on trying and improving remote participants involvement and interactivity at 
IETF meetings (starting with IETF80 in Prague). You can have a look at 
[http://ietf8X.conf.meetecho.com/ (0 <= X <= 7)] to get an idea of such work.

Setting up a dedicated low cost device to manage video projectors, 
microphones, and PA systems for a single moderated inbound access should 
supplant much of the complexity.  By not permitting multiple video/audio 
sources and requiring presentation being available in the cloud prior to the 
meetings, issues of distribution and audio quality are removed.  Such an 
approach will necessitate greater meeting discipline to ensure only those at 
an active microphone are recognized, and that presenters both local and 
remote are permitted control of their presentation. 

With respect to this point, we proposed an experiment at IETF83: 
http://ietf83.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/UMPIRE_Project. Discussions about 
this specific topic can be found in the vmeet mailing list, as well as in the 
once-supposed-to-become-official RPS document from Paul Hoffman 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-genarea-rps-reqs-08.

Developing this approach would offer a number of benefits extending well 
beyond that of the IETF since this is a common problem.  Much of the ongoing 
wok related to HTML5 facilitate standardizing the needed APIs.  There are 
many fairly powerful systems using dual core Atom processors available well 
below $300.  These systems should be able to handle audio using USB adapters 
and source video presentations accessed from the cloud.  A fallback operation 
should be able to carry meetings forward completely from the cloud "as if" 
moderators and participants were present locally.  In other words, treat loss 
of the Internet at the venue as being equivalent to being denied access to 
the physical venue and include this requirement in venue arrangements.

Those traveling thousands of miles already confront many uncertainties.  
Those that elect to participate remotely should be afforded greater certainty 
of being able to participate when problems occur at local venues or with 
transportation.  Increasing participation without the expense of the brick 
and mortar and travel should offer long term benefits and increased fairness. 

Agreed.

Cheers,

Simon


Regards,
Douglas Otis








                                                               _\\|//_
                                                              ( O-O )
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                                Simon Pietro Romano
                                         Universita' di Napoli Federico II
                                     Computer Engineering Department 
                     Phone: +39 081 7683823 -- Fax: +39 081 7683816
                                           e-mail: spromano(_at_)unina(_dot_)it

                    <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento Ë l'alibi degli 
                    idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
                                                     oooO
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(   )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                                         \ (            (   )
                                                          \_)          ) /
                                                                       (_/





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>