On 08/17/2013 02:43 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: >>> >>> Thus, I think this is worth exploring, as an experiment, just >>> like we started the day-pass experiment a number of years ago. >> >> I don't know what "this" refers to in the above sentence, but I >> agree with everything else in your note. > > Offer a "self-pay" rate, as suggested by Hadriel. See how many people > take it and ask them whether that made a difference in their > attendance. Just my 0.00 € I don't agree with charging remote attendees until after it works for them and after successful remote participation becomes somewhat disruptive to the f2f participants. We have so far to go before we get there, that discussion of how, what, who or why to charge is mostly silly distraction. I also believe its valuable that we can truthfully say that anyone can participate with just an email address and IMO we should not damage that. (And yes, I recognise that you can participate much more fully if you go to f2f or virtual voice meetings.) So IMO discussion of details of charging remote participants is also slightly damaging. S.