Subject: [Manycouches] FW: New Version Notification for draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee-00.txt

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 20:42:42 +0000

Hi all,

we submitted a draft to address the charter point about meeting fees.

Let us know what you think!

Looking forward for feedback!

Mirja

On 17.08.20, 16:26, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    A new version of I-D, draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee-00.txt
    has been successfully submitted by =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= and posted to the
    IETF repository.

    Name:		draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee
    Revision:	00
    Title:		Open Participation Principle regarding Remote Registration Fee
    Document date:	2020-08-17
    Group:		Individual Submission
    Pages:		4
    URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee-00.txt
    Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee/
    Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee-00
    Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee

    Abstract:
       This document proposes a principle for open participation that
       extends the open process principle as defined in RFC3935 by stating
       that there must always be a free option for online participation to
       IETF meetings over the Internet.

    Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
    until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

    The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:11:35 +0200

I would like at some point to list the initiatives I hear about these
days that go all virtual and free access...

One almost thinks that in this new world of all virtual meetings there
might be a race under development where events compete to capture the
attention of potential participants, not their budget, like the
websites. (websites are free access, even though at the beginning that
was not a guarantee).

Alex

Le 17/08/2020 à 22:42, Mirja Kuehlewind a écrit :
> A new version of I-D, draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee-00.txt has
> been successfully submitted by =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= and
> posted to the IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee Revision:	00 Title:		Open
> Participation Principle regarding Remote Registration Fee Document
> date:	2020-08-17 Group:		Individual Submission Pages:		4 URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee-00.txt
>
> 
Status: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee-00 
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee
>
> 
> 
> Abstract: This document proposes a principle for open participation
> that extends the open process principle as defined in RFC3935 by
> stating that there must always be a free option for online
> participation to IETF meetings over the Internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Manycouches mailing
> list [email-masked] 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:39:48 -0400

Thank you for this document.

>   In order to fully remove barriers to participation, any free
>   registration option must offer the same degree of interactivity and
>   functionality available to paid remote attendees.  The free option
>   must be clearly and prominently listed on the meeting website and
>   registration page.

For IETF108 the mp3 stream was at first removed, and then restored.
We've had this forever, it seems, but it was actually added when nobody could
get mbone to work, and multicast just was never a thing.   I've used it.
Our entire jabber scribe process is based partially upon the
unidirectionality of the mp3 stream.

I am unclear if this mechanism offers the same degree of interactivity.
It might.  But, what's your intent here?
It clearly does not offer the same ease of functionality.

I also watch youtube videos in the weeks after meetings, because of
conflicts, and I hit pause, and write an email.
It's almost more interactive as a result :-)

The next question is: does the fee waiver program satisfy things?

The big question that I hope the LLC will tell us is whether there is a way
by which physical meetings can stop subdizing operations.  It used to be $0.5M/meeting.
That number has been declining, with the last three November/Asia meetings
losing money.  So independantly of pandemic, we needed to do something.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:58:48 +0200

Hi,

I have read the draft.

The idea in this draft is excellent and deserves being written down.
There must always be an option for free participation to IETF meetings.
  Maybe that option gets to be the norm in the future, maybe not, but
there should be an option.

I would add that there must be an option for free participation even
when the meeting is in-person, not necessarily over the Internet.  Not
only the ISOC did sponsorship which equates to free participation but
there should be more than that too.

For example, at a meeting once I talked to a paying participant who had
worries about his wife being there too, even though we were happy to
discuss the technical topic.

On other occasions I encountered f2f persons who did contribute to IETF
but worried about their non-paying attendance.  That is not normal either.

One cant make a fee on such a core process of creating and maintaining
the Internet itself.

Some comments on speicifc parts of the text are below.

draft says:
> Remote participation for IETF in-person meetings has evolved over 
> time from email-only to live chat and audio streaming, and, 
> currently, to a full online meeting system that is tightly
> integrated with the in-room session and enables interactive
> participation by audio and video.

I do not understand this 'in-room' session?  There is no 'in-room' with
an all virtual meeting, right?  Or maybe it is a virtual jabber room?

Or maybe it is the physical room of the presenter?

> Due to this evolution, and because most participants paid in-person
> fees, online participation has historically been free for remote
> attendees.

No no.  When the IETF meeting was in-person one could still attend over
the Internet but with a fee, especially if one wanted to present.  If
one wanted to just listen/look to the audio/video and type on jabber
then maybe one could be exempt from paying a fee.  Even then, I am not
sure the tool imposed making sure the fee was paid prior to presenting.

Moreover, if one prefixed the jabber text with 'mic:' it meant that that
comment was relayed live on mic by a kind participant who paid the
attendance who, incidentaly, would not ask to be paid in return, even
though no-one verified that either.

So, one could say that the online participation was - in principle -
free for for remote attendees.

> Given this more full-blown participation option, the IETF has
> started to observed an increasing number of remote participants.
> This increase can be explained by the ease with which new
> participants can join a meeting or only attend selected parts of the
> meeting agenda, and also by a less strongly perceived need to attend
> every meeting in person, either due to financial reasons or other
> circumstances.

True, it might be financial reasons and other circumstances like
personal circumstances and privacy.

But it might also because principles and reasonable calculation of costs
might make one to purposefully not want to pay fees that might not seem
appropriate given these calculations and principles.

Each context is different for each person.

> With the recent move to full online meetings, however, there is no 
> distinction between remote and other participants anymore which lead 
> to the introduction of a meeting fee for all participants, removing 
> the free remote option.

Well.  There were too fully online meetings.  For the March one I did
not pay and I did attend remotely.  I dont remember having registered
but certainly I did not pay.  For the July one I did register and there
was an option for consideration of free attendance, that I did
successfully applied for.

So the free remote option was not removed.

> This change led to concerns about the impact both on those who 
> regularly remotely attend meetings, as well as people looking to 
> attend IETF meetings for the first time.  In both cases, even a
> small registration fee can be a barrier to participation.

Yes, both phrases are very true.

> The principle this document states is simple: there must always be
> an option for free remote participation in any IETF meeting, whether
> or not that meeting has a physical presence.

Yes, I agree.

I would go even further to say that even when the meeting has a physical
presence there should be an option of free attendance, be that in-person
presence or remote presence.

Consider the two examples I gave at the beginning of this email with
persons worrying (consuming their brains) for not paying and with
persons that might make a business with the 'mic:' comment.  None of
these situations are desirable.

> registration page.  If the free option requires additional 
> registration steps, such as applying for a fee waiver, those 
> requirements should be clearly documented.

Yes, I agree.

I would go even further.

PArticipation to IETF meeting should not require registration at all.
The IETF should provide the URL and the participant should click on it.
  Any more request of information from IETF to participant should be kept
to a bare minimum for software functioning (identifying between
contexts) but not privacy info like address, phone number etc.  Other
option of giving info (linkedin homepage) should be on a voluntary basis.

The barrier of entry for participaiton should be lowered as much as
possible.

This goes together with the barrier of entry for publication of Internet
Drafts.  It is a tool barrier, but should be lowered too.

> 
> 3.  Financial impact
> 
> Online meetings have lower costs than in-person meetings, however 
> they still come with expenses, as do other services that the IETF 
> provides such as mailing lists, document access over the datatracker 
> or other online platforms, or Webex accounts for working groups and 
> other roles in the IETF.

I would like to better understand the costs.

Mailing lists hosting is one such cost.

Webex account was free if I understand correctly, being offered by Cisco
for all during pandemics.  Webex has no IPv6 access but it is another
issue.  Choosing among paid access and IPv6-capable - I dont know.  But
choice there should be.

But I doubt these are the major costs of organizing the IETF virtual
meeting.

I think the major costs are spent by organizing individuals with their
brains and motivation, their electricity bills, their computers, desks
and Internet access.  Probably such an individual is paid by a large
corporation working at office or at home, or probably has own
consultancy, or retired altogether so paid by investments made 20 years
ago or so.  There are so many distinct cases.  It's hard to draw simple
conclusions of fee/notfee when such little details is known about the cost.

If we do not discuss costs, as the last par of this draft suggests, then
I do not know how we can strike a balance for this free option.

It's all in the costs and agreeing on a value to things.

> These and other running costs of the IETF are also cross-financed by 
> income generated through meeting fees.

And the ISOC?

> It is not in scope for this document or the shmoo working group to 
> make suggestions for changing the IETF's overall funding model.
> This is the responsibility of the LLC Board taking agreed principles
> like the one proposed in this document into account.

Yes, I agree.  The views expressed here are IMHO.

It's good if the board takes these principles into account.

Alex

Status:

---

From: "Reed, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:25:01 +0000

> On Aug 19, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have read the draft.
> 

Thanks, Alexandre.  I'll respond to your specific comments inline below

> when the meeting is in-person, not necessarily over the Internet.

I believe this is addressed on page 2: "there must always be an
   option for free remote participation in any IETF meeting, whether or
   not that meeting has a physical presence."

> draft says:
>> Remote participation for IETF in-person meetings has evolved over time from email-only to live chat and audio streaming, and, currently, to a full online meeting system that is tightly

The paragraph attempts to discuss the evolution of remote participation, and up until IETF 107, the remote participation was more tightly integrated with the physical session (e.g. due to meetecho) than a simple audio stream, for example.

> free for for remote attendees.

I'm not sure what you're proposing here.  Are you just suggesting alternative phrasing?

> Each context is different for each person.

I believe "other circumstances" covers this.

> 
>> With the recent move to full online meetings, however, there is no distinction between remote and other participants anymore which lead to the introduction of a meeting fee for all participants, removing the free remote option.
> 

I'm not sure I agree.  For prior IETFs, there was a prominent "Register as a remote attendee" (or similar phrasing) button, which indicated that if I didn't intend to travel to the location, I could join meetecho for all the WGs I was involved in, and only needed to register to obtain meetecho access.   That option was not present for IETF 108.  There was the fee waiver program, but the fact that there existed a refund process for people who _would_ have applied for the fee waiver, had they known about it, suggests that it was not a drop-in replacement for the free registration.

> 
>> This change led to concerns about the impact both on those who regularly remotely attend meetings, as well as people looking to attend IETF meetings for the first time.  In both cases, even a

I agree, but addressing travel costs is challenging.   A free in-person option would primarily benefit people who happen to live in or very near the host city, such that they wouldn't need to incur lodging or transportation costs.  That doesn't do quite as much to address equality, versus focusing on remote participation.  The intention of this draft was spurred by a transition to a world in which all conferences are online.  By far the biggest cost for organizers of any conference is the venue, and by far the biggest cost for attendees is travel and lodging.  It doesn't mean there aren't improvements to be made for in-person attendance in the future, but I think they're out of scope for this document.

> 
>> In order to fully remove barriers to participation, any free registration option must offer the same degree of interactivity and functionality available to paid remote attendees.  The free option must be clearly and prominently listed on the meeting website and registration page.  If the free option requires additional registration steps, such as applying for a fee waiver, those requirements should be clearly documented.
> 
> Yes, I agree.
> 
> I would go even further.
> 

I'm not sure this is in scope for this document.   I'd suggest another I-D that focuses on privacy or anonymous participation.  

> conclusions of fee/notfee when such little details is known about the cost.

I think the difference is that electricity is a commodity, as is internet access in many parts of the world.  I'm also not sure how you ascribe a dollar value to brainpower, and I don't think I want to go down that road.  But...

> I do not know how we can strike a balance for this free option.

...that's not quite what the document is saying.   It is acknowledging that remote meeting costs are nonzero, but also noting that they're far less than in-person meetings.  It doesn't say we can't discuss costs, but rather says that changing the IETF's _funding model_ is not in scope.

Thanks,

Jon

---

From: "Reed, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:38:09 +0000

> On Aug 18, 2020, at 5:39 PM, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

I don't think the document precludes either of these options.  But I also don't think a unidirectional audio stream with an XMPP return channel is the current best choice for full remote participation.  It may work for many members, but the Jabber room has crosstalk which can be distracting for some people.  With meetecho, for example, they have the ability to only watch the video and audio, and still join the mic line or be able to ask their question without joining a potentially distraction-filled forum to ask their question.

I do take your point about post-facto participation by watching youtube videos and then sending e-mails to lists, so we'll try to incorporate that.

> The next question is: does the fee waiver program satisfy things?

The document attempts to address this:  

"If the free option requires additional
   registration steps, such as applying for a fee waiver, those
   requirements should be clearly documented."

but there's probably more to say.  I think the challenge with IETF 108 was with the initial publicity around the fee waiver.

Thanks,

-Jon

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:35:48 +0200

Le 25/08/2020 à 13:25, Reed, Jon a écrit :
>> The idea in this draft is excellent and deserves being written 
>> down. There must always be an option for free participation to
>> IETF meetings. Maybe that option gets to be the norm in the
>> future, maybe not, but there should be an option.
> 
>> I would add that there must be an option for free participation 
>> even when the meeting is in-person, not necessarily over the 
>> Internet.
> 

Yes, but the abstract says "there must always be a free option for
online participation to IETF meetings over the Internet".

That reads that if the IETF meeting is not over Internet then the
requirement does not apply.

Or it reads as if only the over-the-Internet attendance can be free 
option, but not the in-person.

Maybe it should simply say:
NEW:
"there MUST be an option for free participation in any IETF meeting"

>> draft says:
>>> Remote participation for IETF in-person meetings has evolved
>>> over time from email-only to live chat and audio streaming, and,
>> I do not understand this 'in-room' session?  There is no 'in-room' 
>> with an all virtual meeting, right?  Or maybe it is a virtual 
>> jabber room?
>> 
> The paragraph attempts to discuss the evolution of remote 
> participation, and up until IETF 107, the remote participation was 
> more tightly integrated with the physical session (e.g. due to 
> meetecho) than a simple audio stream, for example.

So it would need to tell that the evolution has not ended at IETF 107
and that evolution reached a new stage where there is no 'in-room' 
meeting, at IETF 108.

>>> Due to this evolution, and because most participants paid 
>>> in-person fees, online participation has historically been free 
>>> for remote attendees.
>> 
>> No no.  When the IETF meeting was in-person one could still attend 
>> over the Internet but with a fee, especially if one wanted to 
>> present.  If one wanted to just listen/look to the audio/video and 
>> type on jabber then maybe one could be exempt from paying a fee. 
>> Even then, I am not sure the tool imposed making sure the fee was 
>> paid prior to presenting.
>> 
>> Moreover, if one prefixed the jabber text with 'mic:' it meant
>> that that comment was relayed live on mic by a kind participant who
>> paid the attendance who, incidentaly, would not ask to be paid in 
>> return, even though no-one verified that either.
>> 
>> So, one could say that the online participation was - in principle 
>> - free for for remote attendees.
> 

I am trying to say that, contrary to what's written in the draft, the
participation has never been free.

The draft says:
> online participation has historically been free for remote 
> attendees.

That is not participation, but 'consumption' as somebody puts it.  With 
the IETF 107 free option to participate remotely one could not present 
at WG meeting.

So, I propose text to say
NEW:
> online participation has historically been approximately free for 
> remote attendees (mainly 'read-only' participation and some write 
> capabilities in chat with 'mic:').

>>> participants can join a meeting or only attend selected parts of 
>>> the meeting agenda, and also by a less strongly perceived need to
>>> attend every meeting in person, either due to financial reasons
>>> or other circumstances.
>> 
>> But it might also because principles and reasonable calculation of 
>> costs might make one to purposefully not want to pay fees that 
>> might not seem appropriate given these calculations and 
>> principles.
>> 
>>> With the recent move to full online meetings, however, there is 
>>> no distinction between remote and other participants anymore 
>>> which lead to the introduction of a meeting fee for all 
>>> participants, removing the free remote option.
>> 
>> Well.  There were too fully online meetings.  For the March one I 
>> did not pay and I did attend remotely.  I dont remember having 
>> registered but certainly I did not pay.  For the July one I did 
>> register and there was an option for consideration of free 
>> attendance, that I did successfully applied for.
>> 
> I'm not sure I agree.  For prior IETFs, there was a prominent 
> "Register as a remote attendee" (or similar phrasing) button, which 
> indicated that if I didn't intend to travel to the location, I could 
> join meetecho for all the WGs I was involved in, and only needed to 
> register to obtain meetecho access.   That option was not present for
> IETF 108.  There was the fee waiver program, but the fact that there
> existed a refund process for people who _would_ have applied for the
> fee waiver, had they known about it, suggests that it was not a
> drop-in replacement for the free registration.

For the fully online IETF 108 of March 2020 there were early registering
people who paid and got reimbursed but there were also people who did
not pay at all (I did not) and still attended remotely.  Anyone with the
link could attend.   I think there was no fee waiver program(?)

>>> The principle this document states is simple: there must always 
>>> be an option for free remote participation in any IETF meeting, 
>>> whether or not that meeting has a physical presence.
>> 
>> Yes, I agree.
>> 
>> I would go even further to say that even when the meeting has a 
>> physical presence there should be an option of free attendance, be 
>> that in-person presence or remote presence.
>> 
>> Consider the two examples I gave at the beginning of this email 
>> with persons worrying (consuming their brains) for not paying and 
>> with persons that might make a business with the 'mic:' comment. 
>> None of these situations are desirable.
> 
> I agree, but addressing travel costs is challenging.   A free 
> in-person option would primarily benefit people who happen to live
> in or very near the host city, such that they wouldn't need to incur
>  lodging or transportation costs.

In addition to the people living there, there are also companions to
people who travel on company cost and share the hotel room.  Or travel
to same place for an immediately preceding or following conference or
meeting (IEEE and others are typical).

> That doesn't do quite as much to address equality, versus focusing
> on remote participation.  The intention of this draft was spurred by
> a transition to a world in which all conferences are online.  By far 
> the biggest cost for organizers of any conference is the venue, and 
> by far the biggest cost for attendees is travel and lodging.  It 
> doesn't mean there aren't improvements to be made for in-person 
> attendance in the future, but I think they're out of scope for this 
> document.

I would not like thid draft to focus on remote participation, but rather
to focus on the free attendance option: be that remote participation or
on-site in-person participation.

We should decouple the remote attendance capability from the free option
requirement.  The free option requirement must always be there, whereas
the remote attendance capability might be there some times.

My humble oppinion is.

>>> registration option must offer the same degree of interactivity 
>>> and functionality available to paid remote attendees.  The free 
>>> option must be clearly and prominently listed on the meeting 
>>> website and registration page.  If the free option requires 
>>> additional registration steps, such as applying for a fee
>>> waiver, those requirements should be clearly documented.
>> 
>> Yes, I agree.
>> 
>> I would go even further.
>> 
>> PArticipation to IETF meeting should not require registration at 
>> all. The IETF should provide the URL and the participant should 
>> click on it. Any more request of information from IETF to 
>> participant should be kept to a bare minimum for software 
>> functioning (identifying between contexts) but not privacy info 
>> like address, phone number etc.  Other option of giving info 
>> (linkedin homepage) should be on a voluntary basis.
> 
> I'm not sure this is in scope for this document.   I'd suggest 
> another I-D that focuses on privacy or anonymous participation.

I am trying to express what it means free participation.

The part of not paying money might be nullified when giving up personal
data.  Many standards are available 'freely' but they want your postal
address in return.

It's easy to say in the text that the free option of attending to IETF
means that that freedom is not hampered by some back firing of some
unknown tool; no privacy data is given to IETF other than the commonly
agreed, consented, and voluntarily desired, strict necessary for
developping trust and performing standards work.

But maybe later I will look at writing a draft like that.

>> I think the major costs are spent by organizing individuals with 
>> their brains and motivation, their electricity bills, their 
>> computers, desks and Internet access.  Probably such an individual 
>> is paid by a large corporation working at office or at home, or 
>> probably has own consultancy, or retired altogether so paid by 
>> investments made 20 years ago or so.  There are so many distinct 
>> cases.  It's hard to draw simple conclusions of fee/notfee when 
>> such little details is known about the cost.
> 
> I think the difference is that electricity is a commodity, as is 
> internet access in many parts of the world.  I'm also not sure how 
> you ascribe a dollar value to brainpower, and I don't think I want
> to go down that road.  But...
> 
>> If we do not discuss costs, as the last par of this draft
>> suggests, then I do not know how we can strike a balance for this
>> free option.
> 
> ...that's not quite what the document is saying.   It is 
> acknowledging that remote meeting costs are nonzero, but also noting 
> that they're far less than in-person meetings.  It doesn't say we 
> can't discuss costs, but rather says that changing the IETF's 
> _funding model_ is not in scope.

But one wouldnt continue to pay money just because the funding model
couldnt change right away equitably.

An alternative method would be to hold all spending until a right
funding model comes up and only then to start spending.

(in organisations it's called 'budget freeze', or 'travel restrictions'
as compared to 'must-spend-now-otherwise-we-wont-ge-same-budget-next-year').

IMHO.

Alex

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:33:34 -0500

Hi all,

I would like to know when will a decision be made if IETF 109 is online or
not?
As it stands, according to IETF Web site IETF 109 will be live in Bangkok.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:41:43 -0400

https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/109/assessment-framework-person-vs-online-ietf-109-meeting/

Posted to [email-masked] by Jay, under the wrong title (IETF108 vs 109):
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/7GHV8JuZuNgYjv-Dt9wrk_CN5BE/

It looks like the decision will be tomorrow:
   _On 27 August 2020 the decision will be announced and the final report made
   public_

I think it will be online.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-