On Mar 2, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > When it's suggested this franchise should extend to remote participants, the conversation almost instantly starts discussing fees for remote participants. I'm personally entirely sure that's simply coincidental timing; a more cynical person might think the two were causally related. David, when I brought up the idea of fees, for the very first time, I said that it should be possible for people who do not have employee sponsorship to attend remotely without paying a fee. Several other people have said similar things as well. I don't think anybody has contradicted this. So the outcome of this would be that nomcom eligibility would be less expensive. So I really don't know why this keeps coming up. I guess there is some real anger out there about the current nomcom situation. But if that's so, this is part of the process of changing that. So you might want to consider not shooting the messenger. The reason I brought up fees is not that I like fees. It's that running the IETF costs money, and that money currently comes in large part from attendee fees, since the IETF doesn't have a membership and doesn't charge dues.