On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/20/2011 03:02 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: >> >> On Oct 20, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> >> One thing to consider is charging for this service >> >> I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get better >> remote participation capability when I am unable to travel to the location >> chosen. >> >> I would much rather pay $200-$300 to have good remote attendance >> capability (video etc.) than get by on 'free'. >> >> This would be assuming that there would be some markup on the remote >> attendance cost to finance the secretariat etc. >> >> I disagree. If the remote participation service is high quality, it should >> require the same registration fee structure as on-site participation. > > Why? Presumably a significant portion of the registration fee goes to pay > the venue for use of its space, for food and beverages, and other costs that > remote participants don't incur. > I think it is fair to say that the costs will clearly be _different_. Remote participants won't get cookies, but might require technical support, for example. I think it is too early to say how that should be reflected in charging for a premium service. Regards Marshall > -- > Kevin P. Fleming > Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies > Jabber: kfleming@xxxxxxxxxx | SIP: kpfleming@xxxxxxxxxx | Skype: kpfleming > 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA > Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf