--On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 09:05 -0500 Ted Lemon
<Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Ted,
Just for calibration, I don't know what your definition of
"amateur" is but, if, as the above suggests, it is the opposite
of "someone whose job description includes IETF attendance or
participation" and/or "someone who is paid a salary while
attending IETF meetings" and/or "someone whose consulting or
equivalent work includes the expectation of IETF participation,
perhaps on behalf of the client", then I have been an "amateur
participant" for well over a dozen years now, including when I
was on the IAB from 2009-2011 and when I was IAB Chair in the
first part of 2002.
That makes, IMO, a rather strange definition of "amateur"
(perhaps a different term is needed), but I look forward to not
paying registration fees in the future whether I attend remotely
or in person. If anyone would like to offer to refund the
registration fees I've paid over the last decade (to keep things
in round numbers), the odds of my showing up in Dallas would
increase significantly. :-)
john