ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]

2015-02-14 10:44:00
Uhhm, who are that “gold bureaucracy" who stay at 5-star hotels at the IETF’s 
expense?

All participants, including area directors pay their own way (or their sponsor 
pays their way). But 3 star hotels don’t typically have good enough conference 
centers.

Also, supporting remote participation in a better way than it works today costs 
more money than is being expended today. That money has to come from somewhere.

Yoav

On Feb 14, 2015, at 5:46 PM, info(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org(_dot_)ec wrote:

Savings are welcomed instead fees.

What if you put all that gold bureaucracy in 3 stars hotels and not in 5? 
Fly economy, have offices in cheap places and countries..

Being smart saves money and it's fun..  A lot more that looking at the 
users's pocket.. But off course it's not as easy 

Carlos
Internet Society Ecuador
www.isoc.org.ec
Síguenos @isocec

El 13/2/2015, a las 19:35, Brian E Carpenter 
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> escribió:

Carlos,

That isn't the point. Somebody has to pay for the things paid for
by the existing meeting fees. Suppose that we improve the remote
participation technology such that, say, 500 people who would normally
attend a meeting stay at home. That's a direct reduction of income by
say $350000, three times a year. So the IETF is out of pocket by $1M/year.
The actual reduction in meeting costs would be very slight. The money has
to come from somewhere.

Does this bother me? Yes, a lot. But it's reality.

 Brian


On 14/02/2015 13:13, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote:
Oh I see. Free is not serious enough..

Carlos Vera Quintana
0988141143
Sígueme @cveraq

El 13/2/2015, a las 19:03, Brian E Carpenter 
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> escribió:

On 14/02/2015 12:52, info(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org(_dot_)ec wrote:
I guess I miss something. Some "smart" initiative to get
money from participants?

No. A discussion how to make remote participation a serious alternative
to travelling to meetings, without breaking the budget.

 Brian


Internet Society Ecuador
www.isoc.org.ec
Síguenos @isocec

El 13/2/2015, a las 17:47, Brian E Carpenter 
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> escribió:

On 14/02/2015 10:50, Brian Trammell wrote:
hi Mary, all,

On 13 Feb 2015, at 22:30, Mary Barnes 
<mary(_dot_)h(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Ted Lemon 
<Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Sam Hartman 
<hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
In the past I've been nervous about giving remote participation too 
much
power in part because I'm worried about how that impacts meeting fees
and in part because I value cross-area involvement.

It's possible that we could collect meeting fees from remote 
attendees, offering a hardship exemption for those who can't afford 
it.   That would depend on remote attendance working better than it 
does now, I think, but it would be unfortunate if the main impediment 
to making remote attendance work well were that we didn't want to lose 
meeting revenue.

[MB] I totally agree on this latter point.  I'm very conflicted about 
charging for remote participation, but perhaps something nominal.  
It's also quite possible that if we improve the quality, we will get 
more remote participants.

A requirement (at least at first) to allocate n% of remote 
participation fees directly to expenses related to the improvement of 
remote participation would make this a lot more feasible.

But it begins to smell like a poll tax. Some people participate remotely
because they simply can't justify the travel expenditure; if it costs 
(say)
$200 to participate remotely, that would be enough to keep some people 
out.
How the Secretariat could possibly validate hardship cases remotely
is beyond me.

Also, does particpate mean "watch and listen" or "watch, listen and 
speak"?
I find it hard to imagine paying $200 just to watch and listen.

(Of course, I made up "$200" but it does need to be an amount of money
that's worth collecting, and in that case it will be a significant issue
for, say, a student in a developing country.)

Brian C





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