We already have video for sessions that use Meetecho. While not perfect, it's a great way to participate remotely. And, it uses protocols that we have developed and are developing in IETF.
Hopefully, meeting minutes for all the sessions that use Meetcho have links to the recordings. If not, you can find them here: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/91/remote-participation.html#Meetecho
I've gone back to the recordings when prepare meeting minutes.
Just as a note, I am not commenting either way on the charging thing. I see the obvious advantage but I also think there's a number of disadvantages. Per my comment earlier about meeting minutes, wouldn't it be a real turnoff if someone was wanting to catch-up with a WG, but had to pay to see the corresponding video recording from a meeting?
Regards,
Mary.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thinking of the remote participant fee. As someone whose travel restrictions prevent attending in certain parts of the world:* I have no problem paying a fee but I am not the decision maker* Paying a fee is better for my CFO* Not paying a fee is even better for my CFO unless we get something for itOne thing I really would like more of as a remote attendee is video of the sessions. That is something worth paying for and it is something that we should have adequate technology base for. If video streaming sessions really is more than plugging in a camera... we is still doin it wrong.So kicking in $100 a session for video is a no-brainer. Can make this an advance payment thing. The video is only guaranteed if at least one person drops the $100 though and the list of 'sponsors' of the video is only published after the ability to sign up closes.If someone wants to add video after the fact they pay a full conference fee per session.