Subject: [Diversity] IETF Participation Model (was Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:45:31 +0200

Hi Dave,

Your model below needs to consider reasons of attendance and expectations.
Any organisation will want to know why their visitors visit and visitors
expectations, so they model including that. The model needs to encourage
and to be flexible. To increase diversity in IETF participation, the
participation model needs to be improved.

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 2/25/2015
>
> Note that our current participation model
>
>   Free:  Email list discussion.
>          Remote attendance, with poor-to-mediocre access
>
>   Pay:   IETF Meeting f2f Attendance
>
> What's being discussed here is presumably far better remote attendance
> capabilities.

That is adding new services/options to the remote participants but what
about adding fees to small/large companies using IETF.

> As it approaches adequacy as a replacement for the basic uses of f2f
> meeting attendance, it's not automatically clear that it should be
> excluded from having a fee.

Companies are excluded, IETF made costs per Individual. That is hiding
reality which includes

And I say that in spite of my continuing
> concern that the IETF effectively restrict serious participation by
> those with constrained budgets (and/or time.)

Individual are more constrained than companies but still the model excluded
one.

> We already have a model with a free/pay range of participation.  If we
> consider the model independent of technical details, we might find
> choices that make sense but still have charging for at least some forms
> of remote attendance or at least some remote attendees.

 When some one puts his name on my document that means the named one is a
participant. Why companies benefit without payments? When I review an IETF
draft I always know that the authors are benefiting from feedback of
participation added. Even IESG is happy to see diverse-reviews on drafts.
In IETF we still may have weak feedback.

May one person stop reviewing for work supported by one company, or should
he/she only review for IETF ignoring other companies outcome?

AB