Subject: [Diversity] Fwd: Remote participation fees

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:00:20 -0800

Usually, ietf-draft authors that pay in ietf-meetings will get the
best outcome from their efforts and get more interests from the world.
Remote participants need to be encouraged/increased so making it free
is an excellent ietf-strategy currently. IMHO, the utilization&fee
issue is not in the side of remote participants but is in the side of
the f2f participants, because it is still not totally-managed by
session/meeting chairs within IETF meetings (which may be a very good
approach for flexibility). IETF meetings are productive and efficient
but could we make more effort to increase that? we may think to add
fees on draft-authors that need more than 10 minutes to present
their-work/wg-draft?

Is it possible to chair a session and you get 20 participants lined up
while that draft presentation was scheduled for 15 minutes. Or  may I
"line up" for a long time with no much expectation of how long it will
take while the queue has 3 only. Could we have in IETF a determination
of best practice maximum input time per f2f participant per draft.

 I suggest that IETF management guide session chairs to announce
maximum input duration time per draft per meeting-participant, so we
can get the highest efficiency per session/WG-meeting.

AB

On 2/15/15, Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It can't be that difficult to make a tool that everyone (including those
> participating f2f) use to "line up" behind the microphone.
>
> Many virtual meeting tools already provide a raise-your-hand feature.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: 15 February 2015 04:11
> To: John Leslie
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Remote participation fees
>
> On Feb 14, 2015, at 5:51 PM, John Leslie <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>   Is there anybody besides the Meetecho folks whose task it is to
>> "make it work"? Is there anybody _including_ the Meetecho folks who
>> has the ability to arrange similar priority at the mike to that of
>> on-site participants?
>
> A tremendous amount of work goes on behind the scenes to make this work, not
> just the meetecho folks.   I remember reporting a problem in a meeting and
> having Alexa show up five minutes later checking to see if it was fixed, and
> I know that other folks from AMS and from the NOC work hard on this.
>
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:20 -0800

Thanks. IMHO participants  in IETF are in two categories: individuals and
companies, both needs to have diversity. I think IETF has shortage in
remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees
because IETF needs more diversity.

However, the issue in my thoughts is not remote or non-remote or ability to
pay or not (diversity items), but the issue can be about benefits, cost and
payment return/outcome. For example, usually remote participants attend but
the outcome is less than others. In business and organisation what matters
is utilization of time, money, and attendance. People in business meet for
many reasons and different methods. All IETF participants attending meeting
physically have different utilization but pay the same fee. I think that
makes limited attendance. Now days Internet services changing to you pay
for what you use only, so could IETF offer that?

Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from the
IETF meeting and then think about the fees to be added or increased per
category. IETF may need to look into that to manage participants'
satisfactions and expectations. I think companies that use and benefit from
IETF services should not be treated similar to individual participant. I
suggest that companies participating (i.e. company name is written in the
WG draft) should/may pay fees specific for that session utilization of
IETF.

AB

IETF Participant from Africa

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Mea culpa!
>
> My fault for not being articulate. I was responding to the discussion
> thread, and happened to chose this one to staple the reply to. I in no way
> meant to infer that Ted (or Dave or anyone else) was advocating that the
> IETF should be excluding people. In this case, the impression (which Ted
> pointed out to me) was that I was saying that he wanted to exclude people
> based on ability to pay. Ted and I discussed this off-list, and we are in
> violent agreement. I did not think he was advocating for that, and I do not
> want anyone to advocate for that.
>
> Moving forward, what I was hoping to avoid was for people to think that
> because the IETF conference fees defer the costs of operating the IETF (the
> meeting itself, the secretariat, and a portion of the RFC Editor), that we
> have to try to squeeze every penny from all sources. That is not
> necessarily a bad mindset to have: we should be striving to be independent
> on the largesse of the Internet Society and their contributors if we can
> manage it. That is not an infinite pot of cash, and no one wants to be
> beholden to a single funding source. However, what I wanted to get out to
> the community is the message that the Internet Society believes deeply in
> expanding access to the IETF and the IETF process. If charging for remote
> access inhibits participation (the unfortunate ‘paywall’ comment), then I
> would have no problem at all suggesting the IETF (IAOC in specific) ask the
> Internet Society to fund remote participation. I think the Board (speaking
> as an individual, NOT in my role as an Internet Society Trustee) would
> treat such a request sympathetically.
>
> I can see this could be a dynamic situation. I can envision a time when we
> as the IETF are truly successful and develop fantastic real-time
> communication protocols that are easy to deploy, cost almost nothing, and
> are secure. At that point, one would *hope* in-person IETF meetings become
> a relic of history. Maybe we would meet once per year or every other year
> to reminisce about how the only way to get work done was to spend thousands
> of dollars of cash per year and an uncountable amount of cost for travel
> time to physically meet in the same location. How 20th Century! At that
> point, I would expect surpluses from meeting fees would be nonexistent, and
> we would need to figure alternate means of funding. However, that day seems
> to be far enough away that charging for remote participation should be a
> remote possibility for the foreseeable future.
>
> > On Feb 24, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:32 PM, Eric Burger <[email-masked]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> The last thing we need as we are just beginning to have success
> reaching out beyond North American, European, Japanese, S. Korean, and
> Australian mid-size to large corporations is to toss up a paywall, some as
> much as a month’s salary or more, for the ‘privilege’ of contributing to
> the IETF.
> >
> > You know, it's really frustrating when you participate in a discussion,
> try to contribute helpfully, and then essentially get accused of being a
> blithering idiot by someone who didn't bother to consider the possibility
> that you might not be.   I'm sure you've had that experience too.   Heck,
> I've been the one who assumed the other person was an idiot too, so I can
> relate.
> >
> > Anyway, if you think I was proposing a paywall, please go back and
> re-read what I actually wrote, and the rest of the discussion that
> followed, with the presumption in mind that I did _not_ mean to propose any
> such thing (because I didn't!), and see if the discussion still works, or
> if you find something I or someone else said that contradicts that
> assumption.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:57:39 -0500

The secretariat has sometimes put out nuts.  Which are great and I love. 
  I suspect however that they tend to be MUCH more expensive than other 
choices.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/27/15 11:08 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> A low sugar option would be nice.  Cheese, say.  Doesn't need refrigeration.
>
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:02:06 +0000

On 27/02/15 16:57, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> The secretariat has sometimes put out nuts.

I think the secretariat should evict those participants
much more often:-)

S.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:08:36 -0600

> companies, both needs to have diversity. I think IETF has shortage in

It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are individuals.

Many a participant's participation is funded by their employer, and in
the process faithfully represent the employer's interests.  But the
participants are individual persons.

> because IETF needs more diversity.

I doubt it, though I don't know.  Remote *meeting* participation tools
have to improve in order to be able to charge much at all for *meeting*
participation.  But we'd pay if the tools were good enough and the IETF
charged for it, or even just if the IETF chaged for it.

Participation on mailing lists should continue to be without charge for
all.  No one is proposing otherwise.

> for what you use only, so could IETF offer that?

Fees are the least of the *meeting* participation costs.  Flights and
hotels are the large majority of the cost (ignoring cost of opportunity,
which may or may not be positive, though I'd assume it's negative in
general, else there would be very few meetings indeed).

> [...]

We measure IETF effectiveness and meeting quality in many ways, but we
don't rate *meeting* *outcomes* for *individual* participants.  (E.g.,
if I don't get my way on a consensus call, that may [or may not!] be a
negative outcome for me, but no one is going to cry me a river for it,
or even take much notice, and I don't expect any different, nor should
anyone.)

Nico
--

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:56:05 +0000

I suggest we get rid of cookie neutrality. The more you pay, the faster access you have to the cookies...

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Nico Williams<mailto:[email-masked]>
Sent: ‎27/‎02/‎2015 08:08
To: Abdussalam Baryun<mailto:[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] Discussion<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)

Nico
--

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:57:12 -0500

Christer,

I think we should start with an experiment where it clearly counts -
getting rid of ice cream neutrality.
That's something where speed really matters ;-)

Alia

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Christer Holmberg <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>  ------------------------------
> From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
> To: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked] Discussion <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:45:19 -0600

Personally, I think those of us that can't eat the cookies should be in a
priority queue for the ice cream.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:08:21 -0600

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 07:22:33 +0000

I have a nut allergy.

But since he changed countries it's pretty much under control.
________________________________________
From: ietf <[email-masked]> on behalf of Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, 28 February 2015 3:57:39 AM
To: Nico Williams; Mary Barnes
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked] Discussion
Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:27 -0800

I don't think IETF is only about individual participation as your message
may mentioned. IETF needs both forces.

> all.  No one is proposing otherwise.

If IETF charges that channel then it will die, that is its way of
progress.  I know no one proposed charging the list, it is all about
meetings.

> or even take much notice, and I don't expect any different, nor should

How does IETF measure quality if not considering average individual
outcome? Usually the receiver determines quality not the server. We need to
know the real average outcome of IETF meeting.

 That example you mentioned was not my meaning of participant-outcome, the
meaning examples of outcome are: 1) one individual in One region wants to
attend one IETF meeting WG session in another region, but he/she must pay
fee for at least one full day. 2) A small company in One region wants to
participate in one IETF meeting day in same region, so it only needs to
send one individual. Both 1 & 2 participations pay the same
meeting-fee, but different outcome of using IETF meeting. 3) an individual
not supported by employer is participating in IETF (full volunteering), and
got WG acceptance of presentation slot. 4) an individual supported by their
company (we know support by naming company name in the IETF, so if it is
named/called then it supports that individual) but was not accepted with
clear reason. Both 3 & 4 are paying same in fees and same outcome (i.
e. good feedback and respond) but different in work support and
different in participation per work.

AB

---

From: Pranesh Prakash <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 04:45:07 +0530

> It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are individuals.

It seems like a fiction because it is a fiction.

Check the IETF main list where there is discussion going on about CFOs 
(Chief Financial Officers) footing the bills for participants.

That doesn't sound like a person participating in their personal 
capacity to me.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

---

From: Pranesh Prakash <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:20:59 +0530

John C Klensin <[email-masked]> [2015-02-28 18:49:28 -0500]:
>
>
> --On Sunday, March 01, 2015 04:45 +0530 Pranesh Prakash
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Pranesh,
> Please be careful about over-generalizing.

The negation of "all IETF participants are individuals" is "not all IETF 
participants are individuals".

Where is the generalization?

---

From: Pranesh Prakash <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:34:41 +0530

Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> [2015-03-001 14:15:05 
+1300]:
> Additionally, the IETF interprets each person's input as individual,
> whether it is or it isn't. That in itself is quite effective in
> disenfranchising employers.

Is there an RFC that states this?

Further, regardless of how the IETF treats inputs in theory, the reality is:
1) A large percentage of IETF participants are paid by their employers 
for participating in IETF proceedings and meetings.
2) Employers are in no way, shape, or form discouraged from putting 
forward their views through their employees.
3) A sizeable number of IETF participants do so using their work e-mail 
addresses.
4) Employers' names are mentioned in each RFC to indicate an 
individual's pedigree.

I would like to know how employers are disenfranchised when this is the 
reality.

I find this entire, "we are all individuals" line to be the foundational 
fiction of

> Also we do, all of us, know how to recognise when someone is parrotting
> the BigEvil Corporation's party line, and we all know that if six people
> with the same affiliation have identical opinions on a contentious
> point, that's roughly equivalent to one individual opinion.

My worry isn't BigEvil corporation.  My concern is that pretending 
individuals who are paid for by their employers and those who 
participate purely in their personal capacity are somehow equal because 
of their equal capacity to hum is fallacious and harmful towards 
achieving diversity.  The first step towards achieving diversity is 
recognizing that a) there is a lack of diversity; b) there are reasons 
preventing diversity.

> The rough consensus process is actually quite good at resisting gaming
> by BigEvil Corporation; see sections 6 and 7 of RFC 7282.

Again: my concern isn't gaming of consensus, nor do I believe 
corporations who sponsor their employees' IETF work are evil.  My 
concern is diversity within the IETF and within the larger sphere of 
Internet governance.

---

From: Pranesh Prakash <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:35:39 +0530

I find this entire "we are all individuals" line to be the foundational 
fiction of the IETF.  Slowly that has gotten extended into the "IETF is 
a the most open, multistakeholder Internet governance body" line.

---

From: Pranesh Prakash <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:43:32 +0530

Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> [2015-02-28 21:07:56 -0500]:
> So, if you prefer to say that I'm still not acting "in my personal
> capacity", very well; but I'd like to know what the difference is (in
> operationalized terms, please).

As you seem to have noted, I believe funding to take part in IETF 
proceedings (and physical meetings) is the key.

Not because it "influences" the views you put forward at the IETF.  (It 
may or may not do so.)

But because it enables you to participate more steadily in the IETF than 
someone who is not similarly funded.  That ability to participate has 
all manners of implications, including the ability to be chair of WGs, etc.