From nobody Fri Feb 13 16:50:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0DB1A044D for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:50:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k5ed5Jwd5Muc for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:50:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell1.rawbw.com (shell1.rawbw.com [198.144.192.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC6C1A0393 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:50:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (m201-12.dsl.tsoft.com [198.144.201.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by shell1.rawbw.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1E0o5dj086079 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:50:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gds@gds.best.vwh.net) X-Authentication-Warning: shell1.rawbw.com: Host m201-12.dsl.tsoft.com [198.144.201.12] claimed to be [192.168.1.100] From: Greg Skinner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5879CCCA-78E8-45F8-8F92-EB889AC47B73" Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:49:52 -0800 References: To: diversity@ietf.org Message-Id: <6D896831-E6E4-4A04-92C5-51E5B9A734B8@gds.best.vwh.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Subject: [Diversity] Fwd: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 00:50:12 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5879CCCA-78E8-45F8-8F92-EB889AC47B73 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I=E2=80=99m forwarding this message from the ietf list because it = mentions diversity, and also because it identifies a need for remote = participation tools that may not currently be satisfied by the existing = tools. Some time ago, I mentioned that one of the reasons the IETF does = not attract a more diverse group of people is because the opportunity to = build certain types of tools either does not exist, or is perceived not = to exist, within the IETF, but does exist elsewhere (such as a = hackathon). A tool that supports remote participation in hallway = discussions, as well as meetings, might be the sort of thing that people = who participate in hackathons enjoy developing. Or perhaps these tools = already exist, but the people who develop them are not aware that the = IETF might make use of them. I=E2=80=99m not sure if this falls under the umbrella of CodeMatch, but = perhaps it would be of interest to the groups that CodeMatch is trying = to reach. =E2=80=94gregbo > Begin forwarded message: >=20 > Date: February 13, 2015 at 9:44:22 AM PST > Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY > From: Dave Cridland > To: Russ Housley > Cc: IETF >=20 > On 13 February 2015 at 15:58, Russ Housley > wrote: >=20 >> Sure, I appreciate that human contact is important. I've been to two = IETF meetings in the flesh, and I enjoy, and have had significant = benefit from, hallway conversations. >>=20 >> But to claim it's "the most important thing", and to further imply = that no other IETF participation or activity should count for anything = is just astonishing. >=20 > I said no such thing. I said that NomCom members need to understand = the culture, and that participation in the meetings is an important = aspect of learning that culture. In my view, this is confirmed by the = survey results. >=20 >=20 > I'll accept that you didn't intend to suggest that, but comments like = those in this thread about the overarching importance of meeting = attendance and hallway discussions send a clear signal to people who = "only" do specification work that their opinion is not as important as = those backed by large companies or who can otherwise afford to attend = meetings and buy rounds of drinks. >=20 > Moreover, if you accept that the word "culture" is effectively = indistinguishable to outsiders from the term "status quo" (though the = intent is obviously different), it's really quite revealing. All this = "preserving the culture" talk comes out in an entirely different light. > =20 > I would love for remote participation tools to offer the same = experience. Today they do not. Maybe some day, remote participation = tools will become good enough, and when that happens we can deemphasize = the meeting participation in the rules for NomCom eligibility. >=20 >=20 > a) The NomCom eligibility rules do not emphasize meeting = *participation*, but meeting attendance. >=20 > b) The NomCom eligibility rules do not *emphasize* meeting attendance, = they *are* meeting attendance. >=20 > c) The "NomCom eligibility" rules govern essentially any say in the = leadership of the IETF. >=20 > So you need to say "... when that happens we can change the rules for = having any say in the leadership of the IETF to something other than = purely meeting attendance." >=20 > Moreover, speaking as someone who has worked remotely for years, and = who currently works for a distributed company, I would argue that your = assertion that remote participation tools are not good enough is = incorrect - they're extremely close for everything aside from hallway = discussions, and even for those, the tools are pretty good -- if = deployed. What kills them without fail is if you have a mixture of = remote and local participants - it's really hard to balance those two. >=20 > But anyway - what would the incentive be to develop and deploy such = tools for the IETF? >=20 > Your own position is predicated on the "culture", and a significant = portion of IETF funding occurs due to meetings. >=20 > If we, as a community -- sorry, my mistake. >=20 > If you, as a community, were to aim to replace one meeting per year = with a virtual one, we'd push the quality of online meetings through the = roof almost instantly. (Preventing physical interim meetings would be a = sensible short-term step). I fondly imagine that the bulk of the costs = for the IETF are in holding the meetings; I also similarly imagine that = the bulk of the attendee costs are hotels and flights, so maybe the = funding problem is somewhat soluble. >=20 > If you, as a community, were to enfranchise remote participants, it = would have the inevitable effect of causing their views to be = represented amongst the I* leadership. >=20 > And yes, this would change IETF culture -- that is the point of = diversity. >=20 > A sensible way of managing this change to avoid disruption would be to = provide several distinct criteria for eligibility, and select from each = pool proportionally, changing the proportions over time. So recall, for = example, might need 15 meeting attendees and 5 people qualifying under = active participation rules to initiate, gradually changing to emphasize = active participation. >=20 > Dave. --Apple-Mail=_5879CCCA-78E8-45F8-8F92-EB889AC47B73 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 I=E2=80=99m forwarding this message from the ietf list = because it mentions diversity, and also because it identifies a need for = remote participation tools that may not currently be satisfied by the = existing tools.  Some time ago, I mentioned that one of the reasons = the IETF does not attract a more diverse group of people is because the = opportunity to build certain types of tools either does not exist, or is = perceived not to exist, within the IETF, but does exist elsewhere (such = as a hackathon).  A tool that supports remote participation in = hallway discussions, as well as meetings, might be the sort of thing = that people who participate in hackathons enjoy developing.  Or = perhaps these tools already exist, but the people who develop them are = not aware that the IETF might make use of them.

I=E2=80=99m not sure if this falls = under the umbrella of CodeMatch, but perhaps it would be of interest to = the groups that CodeMatch is trying to reach.

=E2=80=94gregbo

Begin = forwarded message:

Date: = February 13, 2015 at 9:44:22 AM = PST
Subject: = Re: Updating BCP = 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
From: = Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: = Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>

On 13 February 2015 at = 15:58, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

Sure, I appreciate that human contact is important. I've been = to two IETF meetings in the flesh, and I enjoy, and have had significant = benefit from, hallway conversations.

But to claim it's "the most important = thing", and to further imply that no other IETF participation or = activity should count for anything is just = astonishing.

I said no such thing.  I said that NomCom = members need to understand the culture, and that participation in the = meetings is an important aspect of learning that culture.  In my = view, this is confirmed by the survey results.


I'll accept that you didn't intend to = suggest that, but comments like those in this thread about the = overarching importance of meeting attendance and hallway discussions = send a clear signal to people who "only" do specification work that = their opinion is not as important as those backed by large companies or = who can otherwise afford to attend meetings and buy rounds of drinks.

Moreover, if you accept that the word "culture" is = effectively indistinguishable to outsiders from the term "status quo" = (though the intent is obviously different), it's really quite revealing. = All this "preserving the culture" talk comes out in an entirely = different light.
 
I would love for remote = participation tools to offer the same experience.  Today they do = not.  Maybe some day, remote participation tools will become good = enough, and when that happens we can deemphasize the meeting = participation in the rules for NomCom eligibility.


a) The NomCom eligibility rules do not = emphasize meeting *participation*, but meeting attendance.

b) The NomCom = eligibility rules do not *emphasize* meeting attendance, they *are* = meeting attendance.

c) The "NomCom eligibility" rules govern essentially any say = in the leadership of the IETF.

So you need to say "... when that = happens we can change the rules for having any say in the leadership of = the IETF to something other than purely meeting attendance."

Moreover, speaking as = someone who has worked remotely for years, and who currently works for a = distributed company, I would argue that your assertion that remote = participation tools are not good enough is incorrect - they're extremely = close for everything aside from hallway discussions, and even for those, = the tools are pretty good -- if deployed. What kills them without fail = is if you have a mixture of remote and local participants - it's really = hard to balance those two.

But anyway - what would the incentive be to develop and = deploy such tools for the IETF?

Your own position is predicated on the = "culture", and a significant portion of IETF funding occurs due to = meetings.

If = we, as a community -- sorry, my mistake.

If you, as a community, were to aim to = replace one meeting per year with a virtual one, we'd push the quality = of online meetings through the roof almost instantly. (Preventing = physical interim meetings would be a sensible short-term step). I fondly = imagine that the bulk of the costs for the IETF are in holding the = meetings; I also similarly imagine that the bulk of the attendee costs = are hotels and flights, so maybe the funding problem is somewhat = soluble.

If = you, as a community, were to enfranchise remote participants, it would = have the inevitable effect of causing their views to be represented = amongst the I* leadership.

And yes, this would change IETF culture -- that is the point = of diversity.

A = sensible way of managing this change to avoid disruption would be to = provide several distinct criteria for eligibility, and select from each = pool proportionally, changing the proportions over time. So recall, for = example, might need 15 meeting attendees and 5 people qualifying under = active participation rules to initiate, gradually changing to emphasize = active participation.

Dave.

= --Apple-Mail=_5879CCCA-78E8-45F8-8F92-EB889AC47B73-- From nobody Wed Feb 25 22:00:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0385A1A1A98 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:00:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ABKSLuthJZqD for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x231.google.com (mail-qc0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F20C1A006F for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by qcxr5 with SMTP id r5so6872891qcx.10 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:00:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=VMUDLpva0/x33PMYxdnFshrE8t0z3xZUw7s0r074oFw=; b=fv66zOOLw+XxZTXuPeA5pGTBzJoo8jFSWv3t+DgTghHVkqJwmTqvm2S5/kRs7gLXzy dFVpENJLdRp31wXLqe4n+CNN3BXZyaSnoWyMrPxEmXqIDcDZ1f1BUYediEK7BI4xaSCw N7JyjbUo1dtghizJx7xIbtorz2Ts1OGps5R1lNY3atjhVn4MiY9zOeB5YVq6JJhEHOop MiesLCwhy5dG9hmq2b3vsgwCjWFjTC6gGonpN4/R3cb0C/fxGylLslRmv/WHDZfEQZlK GkJn6T9yy/SV2k+J38OpGaOxSKxgwGIXw8iX3H4kuSM4aQE01KwTwFVdo0hV3GNhQyTg v/gw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.135.207 with SMTP id 198mr14985197qhh.71.1424930420809; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.108.183 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:00:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <54DE7F09.8030500@gmail.com> <54DE90C6.6030609@gmail.com> <54DE9844.1010807@gmail.com> <61FBB27B-4EF3-40A0-8981-00EB89698295@isoc.org.ec> <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <71F05D3C-95F1-4424-B6AA-49EBCCB7065A@isoc.org> <20150214225128.GS14296@verdi> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D6F1EBA@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:00:20 -0800 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "diversity@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: [Diversity] Fwd: Remote participation fees X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 06:00:25 -0000 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 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:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon > Sent: 15 February 2015 04:11 > To: John Leslie > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Remote participation fees > > On Feb 14, 2015, at 5:51 PM, John Leslie 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 nobody Thu Feb 26 21:12:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8761D1A3BA4; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jqc8a1T-jGJY; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-x236.google.com (mail-qa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14F171A3BA6; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id x12so11268402qac.13; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XwMgb9462M1rIrkV7rkgb18FrHQZetV6pOOYe9O4GOE=; b=UUwZaQ0/SiPUhBWylw9zKTj9AwQATHbE2tBA9w3dfb/LlAyqMo8g0nn4APVrJKnwZd hC8wRvDwuEprA3PhSRi3ilubMswgv5MxHx50+qcexjmTpk/r//u3hivo96Prt/LO8JyU OnBroFqWxogtjzYn1CGBqrcjEGKZ2sjJdAp4gW13wh76VH2+ZMqP+1GBz+ut64IA3mGQ +OZFCdJK1fNXjMemXjGoQ/UBX6F1Y7JA13UFuEUjWPWzkA6N8zsuIhTHzQ1X9FCL8+f8 mS83t0ctDeLVhNGaQBv9KiO2/FhoWI8ASqDVANB5V7vxEvrRLJ0Bjw1DfAPLCa8XwhhB ghHg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.182.9 with SMTP id ca9mr26033681qcb.31.1425013940166; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.108.183 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> References: <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <54DBD71C.20101@joelhalpern.com> <26803.1423772214@sandelman.ca> <37661D4B-1842-4890-88FB-2A7B13CDC884@nominum.com> <31891031-4628-49CD-B66C-38A3BD787B70@trammell.ch> <54DE7F09.8030500@gmail.com> <54DE90C6.6030609@gmail.com> <54DE9844.1010807@gmail.com> <61FBB27B-4EF3-40A0-8981-00EB89698295@isoc.org.ec> <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:20 -0800 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Eric Burger Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134546cb4280905100ae94c Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 05:12:24 -0000 --001a1134546cb4280905100ae94c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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 wa= y > 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 n= ot > 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 (t= he > meeting itself, the secretariat, and a portion of the RFC Editor), that w= e > 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 independen= t > 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 =E2=80=98paywall=E2=80=99 = comment), then I > would have no problem at all suggesting the IETF (IAOC in specific) ask t= he > Internet Society to fund remote participation. I think the Board (speakin= g > 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 w= e > 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 becom= e > 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 thousan= ds > 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, a= nd > we would need to figure alternate means of funding. However, that day see= ms > 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 > wrote: > > > > On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:32 PM, Eric Burger > 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 a= s > much as a month=E2=80=99s salary or more, for the =E2=80=98privilege=E2= =80=99 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 a= ny > 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. > > > > --001a1134546cb4280905100ae94c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks. IMHO participants=C2=A0=C2=A0in IETF are in two categories:=C2=A0in= dividuals and companies, both needs to have diversity. I think=C2=A0IETF=C2= =A0has=C2=A0shortage in remote participants and in=C2=A0diversity,=C2=A0so = the strategy is that no fees because IETF needs more diversity.=C2=A0
<= br>
However,=C2=A0the issue=C2=A0in my thoughts is not remote or = non-remote or ability to pay or not (diversity items), but the issue=C2=A0c= an be=C2=A0about benefits,=C2=A0cost and payment return/outcome. For exampl= e, usually remote participants attend but the outcome is less than others. = In business and organisation what matters is utilization of time,=C2=A0mone= y, and attendance. People in business meet for many reasons and different m= ethods. All IETF=C2=A0participants attending meeting physically=C2=A0have d= ifferent utilization but pay the same fee. I think that makes limited atten= dance. Now days Internet services changing to=C2=A0you pay for what you use= only, so could IETF offer that?

Let us focus on partici= pant=C2=A0outcome (individual or organisation)=C2=A0from the IETF=C2=A0meet= ing and then think about the fees to be added or increased per category.=C2= =A0IETF may need to look into that to manage participants' satisfaction= s and expectations. I think companies that use and benefit from IETF servic= es=C2=A0should not be treated=C2=A0similar to individual participant. I sug= gest=C2=A0that companies participating (i.e. company name is written in=C2= =A0the WG draft) should/may pay=C2=A0fees specific for that session=C2=A0ut= ilization of IETF.=C2=A0

AB

IETF=C2=A0Participant from Africa

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015= , Eric Burger <eburger-l= @standardstrack.com> wrote:
Mea cu= lpa!

My fault for not being articulate. I was responding to the discussion threa= d, 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 sh= ould be excluding people. In this case, the impression (which Ted pointed o= ut to me) was that I was saying that he wanted to exclude people based on a= bility to pay. Ted and I discussed this off-list, and we are in violent agr= eement. I did not think he was advocating for that, and I do not want anyon= e to advocate for that.

Moving forward, what I was hoping to avoid was for people to think that bec= ause the IETF conference fees defer the costs of operating the IETF (the me= eting itself, the secretariat, and a portion of the RFC Editor), that we ha= ve 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 large= sse of the Internet Society and their contributors if we can manage it. Tha= t is not an infinite pot of cash, and no one wants to be beholden to a sing= le funding source. However, what I wanted to get out to the community is th= e message that the Internet Society believes deeply in expanding access to = the IETF and the IETF process. If charging for remote access inhibits parti= cipation (the unfortunate =E2=80=98paywall=E2=80=99 comment), then I would = have no problem at all suggesting the IETF (IAOC in specific) ask the Inter= net Society to fund remote participation. I think the Board (speaking as an= individual, NOT in my role as an Internet Society Trustee) would treat suc= h 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 communicat= ion 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 physi= cally meet in the same location. How 20th Century! At that point, I would e= xpect surpluses from meeting fees would be nonexistent, and we would need t= o figure alternate means of funding. However, that day seems to be far enou= gh away that charging for remote participation should be a remote possibili= ty for the foreseeable future.

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Le= mon@nominum.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:32 PM, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> wrote:
>> The last thing we need as we are just beginning to have success re= aching out beyond North American, European, Japanese, S. Korean, and Austra= lian mid-size to large corporations is to toss up a paywall, some as much a= s a month=E2=80=99s salary or more, for the =E2=80=98privilege=E2=80=99 of = contributing to the IETF.
>
> You know, it's really frustrating when you participate in a discus= sion, try to contribute helpfully, and then essentially get accused of bein= g a blithering idiot by someone who didn't bother to consider the possi= bility that you might not be.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I'm sure you've had that = experience too.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Heck, I've been the one who assumed the oth= er 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, w= ith 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.
>

--001a1134546cb4280905100ae94c-- From nobody Fri Feb 27 08:58:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F8C1ACE10; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:58:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6486P0n2OwIO; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:58:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 861A41ACE15; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:58:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71294240BCB; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:58:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [50.95.128.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1B46240BC0; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:58:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F0A203.1020209@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:57:39 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nico Williams , Mary Barnes References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:58:17 -0000 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 nobody Fri Feb 27 09:03:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE8D1ACE25; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:03:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2qEDf-RTOHzs; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CE4E1ACE1E; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:02:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4EBBE73; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:02:09 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QDXFs7JiXgD8; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:02:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.1.229] (147.red-80-28-131.adsl.static.ccgg.telefonica.net [80.28.131.147]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3DCCBDF9; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:02:06 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <54F0A30E.9060308@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:02:06 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Nico Williams , Mary Barnes References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <54F0A203.1020209@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <54F0A203.1020209@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:03:03 -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 nobody Sat Feb 28 09:51:16 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9EF1A88F9; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:08:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.034 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.034 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VUeNhbHURpwq; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15FE61A88F8; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB5AD200D304C; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:08:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=qI7ug4pKUzqX1B BCuF1jwnU1/ZI=; b=SAbICCZwNvddM9fr/dQDmWJwDzAi1MM0APLm+pu9KtWZDR FY8PUL3ONu+BNkCK4XuyzgghtH0XxbLR8N0wfm5o8tt/NY0vMAtwVKeAQfQGEVHJ ii1+Iq+V4waN4zxuZF+GuYzMI4n63HnKl3OSp7ymmoajzWS6+2brrm4C2Q7jY= Received: from localhost (108-207-244-174.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [108.207.244.174]) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 61F36200D3042; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:08:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:08:36 -0600 From: Nico Williams To: Abdussalam Baryun Message-ID: <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:51:14 -0800 Cc: Eric Burger , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:08:39 -0000 On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > Thanks. IMHO participants in IETF are in two categories: individuals and > 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. > remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees > 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. > 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? 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). > Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from the > [...] 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 nobody Sat Feb 28 09:51:17 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78FD91A8941; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:56:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Waqs-JNy5nqo; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:56:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B681B1A1A8D; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:56:08 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f791c6d00000617b-48-54f01506d722 Received: from ESESSHC013.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id AD.D2.24955.60510F45; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:56:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.214]) by ESESSHC013.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.57]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:56:06 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Nico Williams , Abdussalam Baryun Thread-Topic: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) Thread-Index: AQHQUkwH4LF+CobJRkWI3Ap7q1Q1Lp0D8kkAgAAeCMc= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:56:05 +0000 Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> , <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2ESESSMB209erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpnkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3RpdN9EOIwaUVqhbfbrQyWVy7vYLF 4tnG+SwWp64dYXNg8Xh56hyjx85Zd9k9liz5yRTAHMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVMen7V8aCk/YV a/ZNZm1gPGzaxcjJISFgIvHuwX52CFtM4sK99WxdjFwcQgJHGCX6Hn9lh3CWMEo8mDmJuYuR g4NNwEKi+582iCkiEC3xZRcPSC8zkNn/6QbYHGGBPIm2q13MILaIQL7Emp0LoGwriQ9/vjGB tLIIqErsPpUKEuYV8JV4f/8/E8SmmywS2/fOAJvDKaAnsWfhKxYQmxHotu+n1jBB7BKXaPqy khXiZgGJJXvOM0PYohIvH/9jhajJl5jct5kFYoGgxMmZT1gmMIrMQtI+C0nZLCRlEHEDiS/v b0PZ2hLLFr5mhrD1Jbrfn2ZCFl/AyL6KUbQ4tTgpN93IWC+1KDO5uDg/Ty8vtWQTIzDmDm75 rbqD8fIbx0OMAhyMSjy8Bj3vQoRYE8uKK3MPMUpzsCiJ89oZHwoREkhPLEnNTk0tSC2KLyrN SS0+xMjEwSnVwKjy47Gqsu6sVlOvrCenftxU+ps1WXDGn15B1W1/HVTKQg76zyuwvmD1cyNj 99y/nNpmXyd9zgo0/9EQ+OZKa+QxsS2TX6fpOBTola29pFUT78EsP3umihb3DbvzDG1JH/p/ 7zpqJXY7MHeOjizXgo7u56X3lJYE/rz4e1ELb2e4DIN5RqponhJLcUaioRZzUXEiAFfwSdqa AgAA Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:51:14 -0800 Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:56:11 -0000 --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2ESESSMB209erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1256" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I suggest we get rid of cookie neutrality. The more you pay, the faster acc= ess you have to the cookies... Regards, Christer Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Nico Williams Sent: =FD27/=FD02/=FD2015 08:08 To: Abdussalam Baryun Cc: ietf@ietf.org Discussion; diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (w= as Re: Remote participation fees) On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > Thanks. IMHO participants in IETF are in two categories: individuals and > 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. > remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees > 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. > 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 a= nd > payment return/outcome. For example, usually remote participants attend b= ut > the outcome is less than others. In business and organisation what matter= s > is utilization of time, money, and attendance. People in business meet fo= r > many reasons and different methods. All IETF participants attending meeti= ng > 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? 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). > Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from the > [...] 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 -- --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2ESESSMB209erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1256" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
Sent: =FD27= /=FD02/=FD2015 08:08
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: ietf@ietf.org Discussion; diversity@ietf.org
Subject: Re: '= Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote = participation fees)

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussal= am Baryun wrote:
> Thanks. IMHO participants  in IETF are in two categories: individ= uals and
> companies, both needs to have diversity. I think IETF has shortage in<= br>
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.

> remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees<= br> > 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 IET= F
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.

> However, the issue in my thoughts is not remote or non-remote or abili= ty to
> pay or not (diversity items), but the issue can be about benefits, cos= t and
> payment return/outcome. For example, usually remote participants atten= d but
> the outcome is less than others. In business and organisation what mat= ters
> is utilization of time, money, and attendance. People in business meet= for
> many reasons and different methods. All IETF participants attending me= eting
> physically have different utilization but pay the same fee. I think th= at
> makes limited attendance. Now days Internet services changing to you p= ay
> for what you use only, so could IETF offer that?

Fees are the least of the *meeting* participation costs.  Flights and<= br> 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).

> Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from = the
> [...]

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
--

--_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2ESESSMB209erics_-- From nobody Sat Feb 28 09:51:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE5AE1A01AE; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:57:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R8jrMbHRDd-j; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:57:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x22a.google.com (mail-ob0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97E041A012D; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:57:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id va2so18726110obc.1; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:57:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Y+k0JoCVeK243ObsOeMN87Xd1UYvy8aczvgDB9cQDX0=; b=k6skM0qzcCnJ0MV6kO+XImL6Xcy2TvfZwithFEvd+0Z0pmr6IzegT6rsJ5XY6gBw4h 75iHfW+YG9JBtjyC59OkoKhQPuwGi1Hrcf95EUksLbV5Qr9iEmdLvNAvwUmoIfg5FZzm OigV6j4gYs1qB2nA3uvWKF67VAjelTfjOZthteQJoSV/AXBVNOQpJZe6g2a+7ozSVZCE X8fUW9FcLfp8cF8Yt3wIu+4eC1edjOnK0X/BmlJIPci6Idrd0C6QNcMCss3cIwHn++se XldKa+7jxb65Hqgxi6aLECv+EW6dTRxN/rI4XFeV20QT/Ai/VhxTUNBwpnDtZuEGHKbc 78Og== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.97.130 with SMTP id v124mr9784686oib.34.1425049032896; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:57:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.97.135 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:57:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:57:12 -0500 Message-ID: From: Alia Atlas To: Christer Holmberg Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d596664b62f05101315c6 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:51:14 -0800 Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , Nico Williams , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" , Abdussalam Baryun Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:57:16 -0000 --001a113d596664b62f05101315c6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 < christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > 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 > Sent: =E2=80=8E27/=E2=80=8E02/=E2=80=8E2015 08:08 > To: Abdussalam Baryun > Cc: ietf@ietf.org Discussion ; diversity@ietf.org > Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation > (was Re: Remote participation fees) > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > > Thanks. IMHO participants in IETF are in two categories: individuals a= nd > > 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. > > > remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees > > 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. > > > However, the issue in my thoughts is not remote or non-remote or abilit= y > 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 tha= t > > makes limited attendance. Now days Internet services changing to you pa= y > > 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). > > > Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from t= he > > [...] > > 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 > -- > > --001a113d596664b62f05101315c6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 ;-)
<= br>
Alia

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
I suggest we g= et rid of cookie neutrality. The more you pay, the faster access you have t= o the cookies...

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Windows Phone
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> Thanks. IMHO participants=C2=A0 in IETF are in two categories: individ= uals and
> companies, both needs to have diversity. I think IETF has shortage in<= br>
It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are individuals.

Many a participant's participation is funded by their employer, and in<= br> the process faithfully represent the employer's interests.=C2=A0 But th= e
participants are individual persons.

> remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees<= br> > because IETF needs more diversity.

I doubt it, though I don't know.=C2=A0 Remote *meeting* participation t= ools
have to improve in order to be able to charge much at all for *meeting*
participation.=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 No one is proposing otherwise.

> However, the issue in my thoughts is not remote or non-remote or abili= ty to
> pay or not (diversity items), but the issue can be about benefits, cos= t and
> payment return/outcome. For example, usually remote participants atten= d but
> the outcome is less than others. In business and organisation what mat= ters
> is utilization of time, money, and attendance. People in business meet= for
> many reasons and different methods. All IETF participants attending me= eting
> physically have different utilization but pay the same fee. I think th= at
> makes limited attendance. Now days Internet services changing to you p= ay
> for what you use only, so could IETF offer that?

Fees are the least of the *meeting* participation costs.=C2=A0 Flights and<= br> 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 i= n
general, else there would be very few meetings indeed).

> Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from = the
> [...]

We measure IETF effectiveness and meeting quality in many ways, but we
don't rate *meeting* *outcomes* for *individual* participants.=C2=A0 (E= .g.,
if I don't get my way on a consensus call, that may [or may not!] be a<= br> 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<= br> anyone.)

Nico
--


--001a113d596664b62f05101315c6-- From nobody Sat Feb 28 09:51:20 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23391ACD61; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:45:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id frrL7yb3TCja; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E13841ACC81; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:45:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbiw7 with SMTP id w7so18082711lbi.10; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:45:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=o6q6Jdz9Qgn14Q3/KuJB/L+RUmzuou6mTC+I65LY/Xk=; b=obPmLOB63IVQ1dUo1THTC5koXQKQjrR6YNtmVFlR7SC11F3F/OaAYOVNTaB0aWU/e4 ASyThBQfKb3MahEcQNsq84Drt1/H5nL3j72VDS6cHnl1v0qOQBKavs8/sVhUrF13KQNU nCo4pvryI6hC8U/wh+Y4OoDWSpr/hjQneH48IXOrkmU3FfGyNhKlLpnwS8/qt1YRhU4l ecIiCZANZ/iXt0c818FMtXgiI6uOH/9e2K2gYY+oJxxpoAGA7Ss+c5Ly2KcKIrVML7Yd pFmxGygyHPLp834BAHiIYHXZDOKcVruwBh0g+Oerrb7uIotybAbSvVuT3o5dn/aE1apf I2uw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.42.66 with SMTP id m2mr3211372lbl.110.1425051919413; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:45:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.40.204 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:45:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:45:19 -0600 Message-ID: From: Mary Barnes To: Alia Atlas Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113372fa717616051013c11b Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:51:14 -0800 Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" , Christer Holmberg Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:45:27 -0000 --001a113372fa717616051013c11b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Personally, I think those of us that can't eat the cookies should be in a priority queue for the ice cream. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > 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 < > christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> Sent: =E2=80=8E27/=E2=80=8E02/=E2=80=8E2015 08:08 >> To: Abdussalam Baryun >> Cc: ietf@ietf.org Discussion ; diversity@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation >> (was Re: Remote participation fees) >> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> > Thanks. IMHO participants in IETF are in two categories: individuals >> and >> > 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. >> >> > remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees >> > 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. >> >> > 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, cos= t >> and >> > payment return/outcome. For example, usually remote participants atten= d >> 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 th= at >> > makes limited attendance. Now days Internet services changing to you p= ay >> > 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). >> >> > Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from >> the >> > [...] >> >> 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 >> -- >> >> > --001a113372fa717616051013c11b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Personally, I think those of us that can't eat the coo= kies should be in a priority queue for the ice cream.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:57 AM, = Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:
Christer,

I think we shou= ld start with an experiment where it clearly counts - getting rid of ice cr= eam neutrality.
That's something where speed really matters ;= -)

Alia

=
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Christer Holmbe= rg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I suggest we g= et rid of cookie neutrality. The more you pay, the faster access you have t= o the cookies...

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Windows Phone
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> Thanks. IMHO participants=C2=A0 in IETF are in two categories: individ= uals and
> companies, both needs to have diversity. I think IETF has shortage in<= br>
It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are individuals.

Many a participant's participation is funded by their employer, and in<= br> the process faithfully represent the employer's interests.=C2=A0 But th= e
participants are individual persons.

> remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees<= br> > because IETF needs more diversity.

I doubt it, though I don't know.=C2=A0 Remote *meeting* participation t= ools
have to improve in order to be able to charge much at all for *meeting*
participation.=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 No one is proposing otherwise.

> However, the issue in my thoughts is not remote or non-remote or abili= ty to
> pay or not (diversity items), but the issue can be about benefits, cos= t and
> payment return/outcome. For example, usually remote participants atten= d but
> the outcome is less than others. In business and organisation what mat= ters
> is utilization of time, money, and attendance. People in business meet= for
> many reasons and different methods. All IETF participants attending me= eting
> physically have different utilization but pay the same fee. I think th= at
> makes limited attendance. Now days Internet services changing to you p= ay
> for what you use only, so could IETF offer that?

Fees are the least of the *meeting* participation costs.=C2=A0 Flights and<= br> 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 i= n
general, else there would be very few meetings indeed).

> Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from = the
> [...]

We measure IETF effectiveness and meeting quality in many ways, but we
don't rate *meeting* *outcomes* for *individual* participants.=C2=A0 (E= .g.,
if I don't get my way on a consensus call, that may [or may not!] be a<= br> 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<= br> anyone.)

Nico
--



--001a113372fa717616051013c11b-- From nobody Sat Feb 28 09:51:21 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4281ACD77; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:08:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.044 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sh7FECNV3vFD; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:08:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a25.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B68361ACD75; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:08:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a25.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a25.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5E4678063; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:08:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=CUK1RABvQtqAmXYmAOcv vbdNPOQ=; b=wz75IN8bNvUlDe2Oziq/t4nA3XLrEKijnoAPhuBC0mcS21XrJWzK rhZzv6qbih6mCAlGtPiVzEh/kbJ7K/Mr3GR7ShwlpH/BP/MXbzSoxRjeJxcrH4DQ GmtivOakoefHynELvPiLmnWEkeKUeVSzWQdVsy7w96RnOYnOI14UgQ0= Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a25.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68325678057; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:08:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrd18 with SMTP id rd18so31898641iec.8; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:08:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.58.139 with SMTP id i11mr16018205ich.68.1425053301140; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:08:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.130.66 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:08:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:08:21 -0600 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: Mary Barnes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:51:14 -0800 Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" , Alia Atlas Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:08:24 -0000 A low sugar option would be nice. Cheese, say. Doesn't need refrigeration. From nobody Sat Feb 28 09:51:23 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2411A0087; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:22:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j1Ty6y4ulSPz; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:22:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A12A1A0086; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:22:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [195.245.231.67] by server-10.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id 8F/5A-02756-ABC61F45; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 07:22:34 +0000 X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-82.messagelabs.com!1425108154!26228359!1 X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.43] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.13.4; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 13083 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2015 07:22:34 -0000 Received: from exht022p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.43) by server-7.tower-82.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 28 Feb 2015 07:22:34 -0000 Received: from EXHY021V.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.104) by EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 07:22:34 +0000 Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (131.227.200.4) by EXHY021v.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 07:22:33 +0000 Received: from DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.238.15) by DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.238.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.93.16; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 07:22:33 +0000 Received: from DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.238.15]) by DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.238.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0093.004; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 07:22:33 +0000 From: To: , , Thread-Topic: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) Thread-Index: AQHQUQT7/20Fkh/Tsk+30BDvvQeZ7Z0D9eIAgAAPuACAAA1FgIAAhmwAgAANcYCAAAZwgIAADcaAgADxVd0= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 07:22:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> , <54F0A203.1020209@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <54F0A203.1020209@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US Content-Language: en-AU X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [124.168.132.95] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB457; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB457; x-forefront-prvs: 05015EB482 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(479174004)(51704005)(24454002)(50986999)(102836002)(74316001)(2900100001)(2950100001)(92566002)(76176999)(54356999)(66066001)(33656002)(86362001)(76576001)(74482002)(77096005)(62966003)(77156002)(19580405001)(2656002)(106116001)(87936001)(46102003)(122556002)(40100003)(19580395003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR06MB457; H:DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Feb 2015 07:22:33.2661 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 6b902693-1074-40aa-9e21-d89446a2ebb5 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB4PR06MB457 X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com X-OriginatorOrg: surrey.ac.uk X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: EXHY021v.surrey.ac.uk X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: EXHY021v.surrey.ac.uk Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:51:14 -0800 Cc: diversity@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 07:22:39 -0000 I have a nut allergy. But since he changed countries it's pretty much under control. ________________________________________ From: ietf on behalf of Joel M. Halpern Sent: Saturday, 28 February 2015 3:57:39 AM To: Nico Williams; Mary Barnes Cc: diversity@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Discussion Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (w= as Re: Remote participation fees) 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 refrigerati= on. > > From nobody Sat Feb 28 13:12:31 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E00F1A001A; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dj-WiyTZJBkQ; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x22e.google.com (mail-qc0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 418011A0007; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by qcxr5 with SMTP id r5so19233401qcx.10; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=f+UK6Q3WA/cbcKYSfXOQ0DH9oP9sapvMhIGot/sH4tg=; b=lW0iDmAHVbb9MnpsrGqIRAcGNyzjp2LQ0MrST5DLOVcnO0gjCt4nwYCqNqXO+ZunhO 39ylu25EBoTbnQ819mKwAS97oPrinSD4m4+wIxwhRibzSTFA6ZJ1bohgz+UMzEyOcRSk IvKdyylSYY7cnpFpOHyQ9zGx3oB9lzoLWl6a8wAJlX/b3Aw5Nn9Ca6GqvrJWVNii25kp 1BsIn/E4Z9vejD8EyUVoGjgyMef575jTW1ElW3wgF99qg9ksisuACnE80Lo/QPllgVWW /lnNncF+TET9KKUyyDVBpQhLpdp0xNnCOW3p1I+w/BVWPJc7iFklBROALCqa1BnygfHp oD3Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.217.200 with SMTP id n191mr39603628qhb.29.1425157947460; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.108.183 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:27 -0800 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Nico Williams Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137324635140805102c7138 Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:12:30 -0000 --001a1137324635140805102c7138 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I don't think IETF is only about individual participation as your message may mentioned. IETF needs both forces. On Friday, February 27, 2015, Nico Williams wrote: > > Participation on mailing lists should continue to be without charge for > 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. > > Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from the > > [...] > > 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.) 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 --001a1137324635140805102c7138 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't think IETF is only about=C2=A0individual participation as your = message may=C2=A0mentioned. IETF=C2=A0needs=C2=A0both forces.= =C2=A0

On Friday, February 27, 2015, Nico Williams <
nico@crypt= onector.com> wrote:

Participation on mailing lists should continue to be without charge for
all.=C2=A0 No one is proposing otherwise.

I= f IETF charges that channel then=C2=A0it will die, that is its way of progr= ess.=C2=A0 I know no one proposed charging the list, it is all about meetin= gs.=C2=A0


> Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from = the
> [...]

We measure IETF effectiveness and meeting quality in many ways, but we
don't rate *meeting* *outcomes* for *individual* participants.=C2=A0 (E= .g.,
if I don't get my way on a consensus call, that may [or may not!] be a<= br> 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<= br> anyone.)

How does IETF=C2=A0measure quality= if=C2=A0not considering average=C2=A0individual outcome? Usually the recei= ver determines quality not the server. We need to know the real=C2=A0averag= e outcome of IETF meeting.=C2=A0

=C2=A0That=C2=A0e= xample you mentioned=C2=A0was not my meaning of participant-outcome, the me= aning examples=C2=A0of outcome are:=C2=A01)=C2=A0one individual in One regi= on=C2=A0wants to attend one IETF=C2=A0meeting WG session in another region,= =C2=A0but he/she=C2=A0must pay fee=C2=A0for at least one=C2=A0full day. 2)= =C2=A0A small=C2=A0company in One region=C2=A0wants to participate in one I= ETF=C2=A0meeting day in same region,=C2=A0so it only needs to send one indi= vidual. Both 1 & 2=C2=A0participations=C2=A0pay the same meeting-fee,= =C2=A0but different outcome of using IETF meeting. 3) an individual not sup= ported by employer is participating in IETF (full volunteering), and got WG= acceptance of presentation slot. 4) an individual supported by their compa= ny (we know support by naming company name in the IETF, so if it is named/c= alled then it supports that individual) but was not accepted with clear rea= son.=C2=A0Both 3 & 4 are paying same in fees and same=C2=A0outcome (i. = e.=C2=A0good feedback and respond)=C2=A0but different in work support and d= ifferent=C2=A0in participation per work.=C2=A0

AB<= /div> --001a1137324635140805102c7138-- From nobody Sat Feb 28 15:15:15 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86561A008F; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:15:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qm7qqt4D9PdX; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:15:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.prakash.im (prakash.im [162.243.72.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E30491A005C; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.prakash.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54B27603FB; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 04:45:09 +0530 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.cis-india.org; s=mail; t=1425165310; bh=zy0enj5iX7PK/QT4XLeweaRCWjLaqOcI7z50zDpFWWw=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=YppfYu8vRnQ3oDoqEOL5XxkbcDlanBKRanuUtgCCbr7RCXqAJPFwaAsbsSw/mU0p1 y60uCNAZ51HYfPQM+fzF1KmF/wp6b3P8F9+ZyDqZy77ol09qFeJK45oLV4cpCfoCr9 FLDnI6qss1eAwpY+5s2ZA4cwqq6XPqdP4LTqgH54= Message-ID: <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 04:45:07 +0530 From: Pranesh Prakash Organization: Centre for Internet and Society MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nico Williams , Abdussalam Baryun References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tgLFipXSoa1NNLScQawf007uvCsisRErn" Archived-At: Cc: Eric Burger , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:15:13 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --tgLFipXSoa1NNLScQawf007uvCsisRErn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nico Williams [2015-02-27 00:08:36 -0600]: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> Thanks. IMHO participants in IETF are in two categories: individuals = and >> companies, both needs to have diversity. I think IETF has shortage in > > 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=20 (Chief Financial Officers) footing the bills for participants. That doesn't sound like a person participating in their personal=20 capacity to me. --=20 Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash --tgLFipXSoa1NNLScQawf007uvCsisRErn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU8kv7AAoJEE0qlBAVWSN1U30QAKQaGRGFNLPe7lMZI6Kc8dEG tDU7kR+d7UJ0IF6ZQKb4IBeOjHU+GfgHyDygpMey79qKHy8BtytajI3WnxRi6UC8 0aZAtdVeYGiXdCSaakTkRXb2NYAoo8H5SG4fD9TMEHzoxvjG5vWQvSsiQjf7ak3q Ra1ZTdhsrvR3vOjIboNYh1M1kp5KFYYqynugAfzQvSHEmXZq8/C27E+3tCdQaWgf M+ybaM27Agi0ajT6gfJV1VOE3IsYasH9nXG87GxCprssxBaf3MZ1OkmL5KiFW1xr RYzX3cQC6or8rirYKw1X80Kh+24Zo+WMPHZ20q5pzowMiXaF8yGejVDcY08ZX7F5 nJknbmBmTN2OsvfNb3mj8LAmrzgslCYtH2LlB7WCpEazrblUPh2Jhi0o0vgyE7Yb aaM++QD/3c/lD9O7L3SGKBXNk5UmSeq50U4nwac8IuEztQdpfeL0ImZYQXB+PMoH XM5Gaj7wCKE/E+ZknXcBkIlt24iS2tJXh3z1lZANYnuu/KBUXvRsGckYsnOZOMyV iYBlEHLvb+MysQZxCZHa2NbwQXO17joap4rAdeJe4NwizVdEqkgAL5NfZb0wT8NC gSltTrZk5EuiBOF7SAFR7AEJV95M7CCiclGjsHFayWufKcFuB1HoqlmN/KVe+1IT nOz5DR7y6Tguz1hrJmY9 =ZRCw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tgLFipXSoa1NNLScQawf007uvCsisRErn-- From nobody Sat Feb 28 17:51:17 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF4A1A1AFC; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:51:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-zCdsS4T4ah; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:51:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.prakash.im (prakash.im [162.243.72.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20D9D1A1ADF; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:51:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.prakash.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 965356051A; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:21:09 +0530 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.cis-india.org; s=mail; t=1425174671; bh=FKDNjnsDbxqnNWazePyPUCSq0hSVyNU5CVmdydBfUm0=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=pdGxg9QEXy7HYfC2qBvJHYqQXVigeAOgUc6OZsygVkfOz5KHUanGxk2wzIJ7M3R8t uqtwDYoe5O65gj/+a0JutOWZ4q3ekFxcJuiERY23cTAOJk4rpc5FHVQRf1vCVd7IXM Ymf4D5P+3nOVvrTNCQrZ41Po1XFHAK5X5vllXpzU= Message-ID: <54F27083.7060009@cis-india.org> Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:20:59 +0530 From: Pranesh Prakash Organization: Centre for Internet and Society MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John C Klensin References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <6877CE786B7D930D17F2F89E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <6877CE786B7D930D17F2F89E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sMKPSCpFCPx1AmTTPHXgFvigWVFdiulqG" Archived-At: Cc: diversity@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 01:51:16 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --sMKPSCpFCPx1AmTTPHXgFvigWVFdiulqG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John C Klensin [2015-02-28 18:49:28 -0500]: > > > --On Sunday, March 01, 2015 04:45 +0530 Pranesh Prakash > wrote: > >> Nico Williams [2015-02-27 00:08:36 >> -0600]: >>> It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are >>> individuals. >> >> It seems like a fiction because it is a fiction. > > 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? --=20 Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash --sMKPSCpFCPx1AmTTPHXgFvigWVFdiulqG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU8nCIAAoJEE0qlBAVWSN1Sc0P+wcr2cc0+fkb53HErQhe2up8 zkmaW9CFNrweYP10cIp6T19fp1lekGljYEydrWVeJXP/h3QiMBezhbV4SyQhSkN4 WZvtNMSuNdQ11j2p8k6vpCLoOiL81kHb4Bw8nUxbWeAHSpGNNAS1wfT5pOa3gSla SACEWdAEKXVPkK7Ogso5Szh7HmuHD2JiNxPACT/X6lFYb4QIc+dLf7onMtRoh0Mh nxmhj74mf2azkbiwkv+ikWyCUPmtBRmLrLyUjaERyRccuTn7Ft98G77U9zBKeWp1 Ff/0tvdxWhN4zCeLzK+InCL/B5hMLtatJLSaFwZ9pGDcHy+nzRioKtD4v1lvK7qz 4AOVlsOaYgyj9kjtMyBgSt1TuBjTNcd/e1eujj9JCXaTLxYaOv4RCtD/K5+QTldP aLxTOWvnHWx345izBpSDj3wTBnadKqN9GqTsvdZuX1dGpksfn7TnyX6VK5SlUQ5J NJ7pmhFHc8DqdYbFqKLSGWVKKiYWnPLArg4F1BoJwMtQ0/P/tI+OSnZeaqfJNupV eYYFlvZpKFXV6ksFjuCuZsRNH85ft+K1UhUAFKF5Rg0+nKy/GIL4mWS3d5BlOkM/ CL/bKF3BbxLhA8Esb9/3lJeVzRjpIV9EBD8+icA5THk78dt8pel3Z8YxGSTvtJEZ 2xKCFfDs45pzURFzAPUK =2QDD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sMKPSCpFCPx1AmTTPHXgFvigWVFdiulqG-- From nobody Sat Feb 28 18:04:51 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3072B1A1AFF; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:04:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9nORorfdKHzE; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.prakash.im (prakash.im [162.243.72.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D3701A1AFC; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.prakash.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D01A6051A; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:34:45 +0530 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.cis-india.org; s=mail; t=1425175488; bh=q6cJTop+Rs/HP1bnmuFr8wnMqz9SsPgiq1cMpS3cuE4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=szZZo2XNsr2ptBLUnRp9IgSuNPSXqlD9H+XtaRzIPznDtiGuak//9wWeAOOqQorHn YDwTvDQ8VSIEUwGTA3cd3cLmjX/ej3yYdPN9+R0ZqnHim4lNgEFrf6i5hpr4iecnp0 xqRTYz3YpqSqkMQMvEDZkMp6yrB72Eu6oGe5Sa/c= Message-ID: <54F273B9.3020008@cis-india.org> Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:34:41 +0530 From: Pranesh Prakash Organization: Centre for Internet and Society MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <6877CE786B7D930D17F2F89E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54F26819.9060202@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54F26819.9060202@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Pr3VjtWs6doqm4c1uTKdQQhC9A2PGSHXA" Archived-At: Cc: John C Klensin , diversity@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 02:04:50 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Pr3VjtWs6doqm4c1uTKdQQhC9A2PGSHXA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brian E Carpenter [2015-03-001 14:15:05=20 +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=20 for participating in IETF proceedings and meetings. 2) Employers are in no way, shape, or form discouraged from putting=20 forward their views through their employees. 3) A sizeable number of IETF participants do so using their work e-mail=20 addresses. 4) Employers' names are mentioned in each RFC to indicate an=20 individual's pedigree. I would like to know how employers are disenfranchised when this is the=20 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 peopl= e > 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=20 individuals who are paid for by their employers and those who=20 participate purely in their personal capacity are somehow equal because=20 of their equal capacity to hum is fallacious and harmful towards=20 achieving diversity. The first step towards achieving diversity is=20 recognizing that a) there is a lack of diversity; b) there are reasons=20 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=20 corporations who sponsor their employees' IETF work are evil. My=20 concern is diversity within the IETF and within the larger sphere of=20 Internet governance. --=20 Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash --Pr3VjtWs6doqm4c1uTKdQQhC9A2PGSHXA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU8nO6AAoJEE0qlBAVWSN1ymUQAJgZKYsrf7sJDWSD6YEgUXEa 97KazTl56CT1WQgn6RK8i8bLgR0qew6M9zw/W6WNc5DuC2axfiUBmVDqomdbVdD6 uAf8Y+ybUjio6Ezh6kJ+4yEpyz0o5Z4zcoXznGszRgjXjyKUNgzGjFPx+P/M+Apm SmzsUEYGXLI/021OeFL7LT01f/UAGONqTqo0joYuu+xuuCluWpr+0Gpltmv/5GTp x8dJv6QZdRWYWDSjxGNrvxNWgOQcYogxrbckitc74EgL1dSmYaZuv0kQPx7uzEKB LW0I/EfFenRX0KFabuDLAjjFIhHnsHLdLS7GWr87cEmcPndnn3SFnXN7QHhPxFah R3Vvsdxt4dyNp5Z1kUVxz2yY1dzjTmfyuihod69rQ6xNMcAIvFOgjTom/Lyqe9Vp uiUK8bn8H6VU1+gqxSoHIavAjUDjayWip3jCzhxLLBm60jRf/aAG1YDIfKsaBiA9 d7MX9/BpgiyYi6ygaaUeUqppqRj+dIq+H4BI/kguxpz9Sh/iicQvR1WD+zwyOc8O x9tPIXp4K/oaswAVch93uyZE6uwCjmENTBo6wU6Vu/V9RietuowhfzqSKnOnzREO vtaK1G8Zy0yO9J6hurdYYnNfMS3mkzAWhs9mXM4ynazq4DrS1kPD7SXPWwYX/KBE golh7BoijOHrTA891MlC =rrCM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Pr3VjtWs6doqm4c1uTKdQQhC9A2PGSHXA-- From nobody Sat Feb 28 18:05:49 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56391A1AFF; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:05:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZUtLBrHFuoRH; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:05:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.prakash.im (prakash.im [162.243.72.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C1351A1AFC; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:05:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.prakash.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB0656051A; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:35:42 +0530 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.cis-india.org; s=mail; t=1425175544; bh=iUGPWxCui44PXsAmRSCQPxAJ55ksC2KkdrhFLzutIHk=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=YRE/m8PzUylgvjDjX/LWP3teidyfQsvERCsZncEz/CwU+axqDk1GKEgb5oGKseaR3 /cbSiEafna+wKdLOHUKTMBGsZO8B9mWfc6ZS7kC53yq4RcSZ1RnKgyKPwYFXWXPpzp sLPB+X1IGEsTW6RvZhtaNiZ0m3Ttl1OtzugK3gQo= Message-ID: <54F273F3.3050002@cis-india.org> Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:35:39 +0530 From: Pranesh Prakash Organization: Centre for Internet and Society MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <6877CE786B7D930D17F2F89E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54F26819.9060202@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54F26819.9060202@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Wu2E0rOJRMHWOGWkWohqEqG67TOqJIw9l" Archived-At: Cc: John C Klensin , diversity@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 02:05:46 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Wu2E0rOJRMHWOGWkWohqEqG67TOqJIw9l Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brian E Carpenter [2015-03-001 14:15:05=20 +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=20 for participating in IETF proceedings and meetings. 2) Employers are in no way, shape, or form discouraged from putting=20 forward their views through their employees. 3) A sizeable number of IETF participants do so using their work e-mail=20 addresses. 4) Employers' names are mentioned in each RFC to indicate an=20 individual's pedigree. I would like to know how employers are disenfranchised when this is the=20 reality. I find this entire "we are all individuals" line to be the foundational=20 fiction of the IETF. Slowly that has gotten extended into the "IETF is=20 a the most open, multistakeholder Internet governance body" line. > 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 peopl= e > 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=20 individuals who are paid for by their employers and those who=20 participate purely in their personal capacity are somehow equal because=20 of their equal capacity to hum is fallacious and harmful towards=20 achieving diversity. The first step towards achieving diversity is=20 recognizing that a) there is a lack of diversity; b) there are reasons=20 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=20 corporations who sponsor their employees' IETF work are evil. My=20 concern is diversity within the IETF and within the larger sphere of=20 Internet governance. --=20 Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash --Wu2E0rOJRMHWOGWkWohqEqG67TOqJIw9l Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU8nPzAAoJEE0qlBAVWSN1zHMQALCxq8cHWcYA1J+I/953k9+8 5zCmmhUEvV1UxEUkSxeZm4TGnlUqniZrSM85uDLdPvE5fjMPRnvuYPiopwf8vlSg i0gyZQ/XTho9uLZ/JwlhIu+EMtuZZ1+IwAP2gNUE1KJCZeGifGu6h23nq3GwZto8 tTeduUJKuMO80cRnKofzgmITQG7HRVITQmad6qNZPv1HxhXhJdOURkicKYF/rxYo tAI62BQN1yevFNWJP8Jr7yUdzaxL+lEXUvMR8CfpAwkGB/5guaVWIc76UPKWKxoh /ZhHd7MNYid+skDZ53r3j9TYb0cqQPfvqbnuC6ZxtBemKTj8a9AdoakdHQI7qB/R KHgDhrQmZXDHQED3eIwX2EcmrWbqrJeYSne0Yw/4Z/pqunnwe1MEhKePaDCBqMJT cG5J94SwB6jG2SjW0lxfqC4ORrIckxZA2wEWIHUYspmT7eJRaHiPZKYob/4apee4 4g+r1jO9DBUGkDOuNdODpTlgW45BSsTBE1IPrj3CUCeyVyK5qCqBsegQrpHOqq6U MbDyVFFXfgwuHnCmHty8FBxS06B3kfns+TdEhekEaAgC78zdXPE+38NjJ/cUgww6 uNo7HMtVvoP6iwvmJYGbvB5InG1wva3znJ4Frlg6v3jGpkTwiLDtGb67qhV+5BsC F5n+ZAKma8oAnWahf/VN =7gTl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Wu2E0rOJRMHWOGWkWohqEqG67TOqJIw9l-- From nobody Sat Feb 28 18:13:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD491A01F2; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:13:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hsf3ReiFGVcj; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.prakash.im (prakash.im [162.243.72.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B2C81A017E; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.prakash.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 023C56051A; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:43:39 +0530 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.cis-india.org; s=mail; t=1425176022; bh=c+N0LnTl9d+oLmUISUwhxez7sMY02EW/6vOcbzBr7xM=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=g7qIYDLhvqc5LRscny5uG7Tno2L9xoiZWVlcBHxahOFHdtCZntGy3vZs82Io5v1AA TUhTqj1QIv1Hbb2R1E0Q6eRCWR+QwTOsMO/IGtUIRyRBeEtVFsjBwFzo+avDYS/OrU v5JMsxnE/3BwahlgjEvnh2Ta3DjMaQbZD7fOlwP8= Message-ID: <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:43:32 +0530 From: Pranesh Prakash Organization: Centre for Internet and Society MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Sullivan References: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="N141MG6kMc33MGpDWeEpmUjBXXoN7Mn1G" Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 02:13:44 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --N141MG6kMc33MGpDWeEpmUjBXXoN7Mn1G Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Andrew Sullivan [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=20 proceedings (and physical meetings) is the key. Not because it "influences" the views you put forward at the IETF. (It=20 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=20 all manners of implications, including the ability to be chair of WGs, et= c. --=20 Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash --N141MG6kMc33MGpDWeEpmUjBXXoN7Mn1G Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU8nXMAAoJEE0qlBAVWSN1oJYQAIe2QsGpD8iJsGFxprZliG2q HmtM+3GgqP9oMYPQxO3dHTrIlkSuPo7lY6Aqrsr14e2XEQccSsL6sr4Oz3gkkwz3 QpWhdJGATUIZvE1f0TZyPQG8st4Fc4V+0GjOnfu9oF2ZnwP1zsVBip0m+r5rbVqb /Fv9FrGJyquKNJ36eqHMLHYufbWmTxkdlH4i656Wq+3YPj/bLbeop/Safjiis+8Z ofPp6lv01qgIGU1RaGCit0+usZ2OWyQd3+JkyHMtKTsTZFxKrHaumCER6RkKWRhY e/aWn1vQGTJ6jMR3lnBf3nFB+MsHV//AfcLIjQu1GYhmZ2pYRzlMIgOpyuImcgGK Tp6aNItAhYxfXD5psfOQlzWaTSGlIb4bnL2s26jwJixcxndQ0N9psb6EDDpBp0F2 DDqUo8r4xSJrHTVmKQesk5WXduTjm1jWSjZxCwLwh4S1tXKNGoJeMM70AI3Yw/Dc JcKy0XAZk+8OIps1vh5AMw56nJCY4D9xQrOTlPthK+ZTXtAPk7WSVljyaOuJEhPZ nr0+qn7zXK7ugvr95EFwJtFT5vEddQbX3vvn2/YApnDSfEXrgKPlbQ++XrSNpvf2 TqmVr1ST9gnbbwKUJfztHGqS+DJ7dEG6y/vH2QM2NiFI5c6gyOp67+/Aj86dMVkp rUnNiT+DCt4SLsWS+IPI =gScw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --N141MG6kMc33MGpDWeEpmUjBXXoN7Mn1G--