+1 On Oct 21, 2011, at 6:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 10/20/2011 12:02 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: >> I disagree. If the remote participation service is high quality, > > it should require the same registration fee structure as on-site > > participation. > > It seems to me that any fees (and I've got some issues with that: > see below) should be tied to the expense of providing the service. > > But aside from that it seems to me that there's historically been > an interest in keeping IETF processes open. I don't think we want > to get into a situation in which only people whose participation > costs are covered by an employer or someone's got enough money to > fund themselves. I don't think that this would be particularly an > issue if meetings haven't increasingly become the place where > decisions are made (sorry, it does happen far too often) and centers > of working group activity. It's increasingly the case that if you > want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have > considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're > suggesting. > > But first, let's find out what it actually would actually cost > the IETF. > > Melinda > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf