On Feb 25, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Tim Chown <tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Perhaps charging is introduced for higher quality access (cases b, c), while casual ‘best effort’ remote participation is kept open and free (case a). If I were setting it up, I'd give everyone the same access whether they can afford to pay or not, and incentivize paying by listing people who pay differently in the proceedings. If you're an amateur participant who isn't being paid to attend, you shouldn't have to pay, period. If you are being paid to attend, then we should just say that your company is expected to pay the remote attendee fee. If they don't, it should be a bit embarrassing for them (not for you!). In practice I would expect that people who are being paid to attend would just pay the remote attendee fee, because they support the IETF, and there's no reason for them not to.