Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
2015-02-17 11:05:17
We always can work smart. Lot of countries are cheaper than the always selected
ones.
The ICANN staff should work better to save and void work with the users's
pocket to finance their jet set luxury conference's style.
Carlos Vera Quintana
0988141143
Sígueme @cveraq
El 14/2/2015, a las 13:21, Mary Barnes
<mary(_dot_)h(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> escribió:
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Yoav Nir
<ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
[MB] True. But, perhaps considering other sorts of conference facilities with
nearby hotels could be an option. In particular, if we really do improve
remote participation to the point that we reduce the number of onsite
participants, the size requirement for the conference facilities goes down.
[/MB]
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.
[MB] In one sense yes. But, given some of the work in RAI, this cost should
be going down. The ability to participate in a meeting remotely with a very
rich multimedia experience is something that we certainly ought to be able to
do with the protocols we're developing. I have worked extensively in an
environment where these technologies are essential to business (as I imagine
many of us having) and you no longer need an expensive dedicated video unit
to have a high quality experience. We are developing these technologies in
IETF in the RTCWEB and CLUE WG. If we can't leverage those protocols for our
own meetings, then we've not done something right in the IETF. And, actually
this is already happening with Meetecho. Also, considering that much of
what we need is built by vendors who have significant participation in the
IETF, I would think that the net financial impact could be optimized.
I think the biggest problem that high quality remote participation will
introduce is that companies will become even more reluctant to send people to
the face to face meetings. I do still see value in people attending face to
face IETF meetings with some regularity, I strongly believe that IETF moving
to a model that doesn't require so many people to travel to get the work done
is a good thing and ought to be a longterm objective. I'm not a financial
expert so I can't posit that this will make sense from a business model, but
IETF is a non-profit and in that respect doing the right thing for the
community should be the overarching objective. [/MB]
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>
|
- Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY], (continued)
- Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY], Mary Barnes
- Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY], John C Klensin
- Re: Remote participation fees, John Leslie
- Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY], Ted Lemon
- Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY], Rich Kulawiec
- Re: Remote participation fees, John Leslie
- Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY],
Carlos Vera Quintana <=
- Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY, Lixia Zhang
- Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY, Melinda Shore
- Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY, Lixia Zhang
- Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY, Michael Richardson
- Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY, Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY, Michael Richardson
- Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY, Russ Housley
- Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY, Ted Lemon
- Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY, Russ Housley
- Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY, Loa Andersson
|
|
|