I agree 100% with George and would just add NANOG to the list of meetings that went from f2f to online. NANOG used a cute “enter coupon FREE at at checkout” approach which then discounted the fee to $0.00. Most of all, it seems to me that the timing aspect of this decision is all wrong. It really doesn’t seem that long ago that we had IETF 107 go online followed shortly thereafter by various lockdowns all over the world. I agree that the issue is not so much the actual fee as it is a change in model and the perception of our open process. Those active dedicated participants who would normally attend in person will probably still brave the timezone challenge and attend, while “lurkers” and observers who are otherwise unable to attend might just not bother if they have to pay. At the end of the day, I do not think that is good for our community. One datapoint: The RIPE meeting which went “virtual” in May had *record* attendance (and no fee). Ole > On 10 Jun 2020, at 17:01, George Michaelson <ggm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It would be entirely normal for a body which is not primarily about > earning revenue, to incur the risk of LOSING revenue in a significant > change from f2f -> online, in order to understand the nature of the > problem. This would not be incorrect. Its a decision an LLC can take: > incur some costs, to understand your problem. Its a capped risk. It > cannot exceed the loss of revenue of the total number of IETF > participants. (that is btw a loss of income, not necessarily a loss > running the meeting. So it could arguably be called an opportunty cost > more than a loss) > > So, I would actually expect an un-capped fee waiver to be available > and to base the worst-case risk side of 'how many waivers do we need > to fund' on how many people elect to take the option. > > I haven't yet seen a cost model which explains how the free > participants remotely represent a cost to the IETF to run. Is there a > volume based charge in Meetcho? Is there a volume based cost to the > infrastructure to run the web-casting? > > I note that every meeting I have attended online this year (RIPE, DNS > OARC32 (I am on the board) and the up-coming ICANN RoW) have been > entirely free. Two of the three examples would normally charge. > > I simply don't understand how either the LLC or any other body decided > there had to be a limit on "free" noting that many of us expect to > pay, but an uncounted number of us might suffer financial hardship > which in previous times, was unassessed and hidden in 'remote > participation is free' models. > > I think this is a huge departure from our norms. I would have expected > this to be discussed. > > -G > Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office: +1 415-550-9433 Cell: +1 415-370-4628 Web: protocoljournal.org E-mail: olejacobsen@xxxxxx E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Skype: organdemo
