Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      M. Kühlewind
Request for Comments: 9501                                      Ericsson
BCP: 239                                                         J. Reed
Category: Best Current Practice                                  R. Salz
ISSN: 2070-1721                                      Akamai Technologies
                                                          December 2023


    Open Participation Principle regarding Remote Registration Fee

Abstract

  This document outlines a principle for open participation that
  extends the open process principle defined in RFC 3935 by stating
  that there must be a free option for online participation to IETF
  meetings and, if possible, related IETF-hosted events.

Status of This Memo

  This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
  (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
  received public review and has been approved for publication by the
  Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
  BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

  Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
  and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9501.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
  document authors.  All rights reserved.

  This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
  Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
  (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
  publication of this document.  Please review these documents
  carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
  to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
  include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
  Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
  in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

  1.  Introduction
  2.  Principle of Open Participation
  3.  Financial Impact
  4.  Considerations on Use and Misuse of a Free Participation Option
  5.  Security Considerations
  6.  IANA Considerations
  7.  References
    7.1.  Normative References
    7.2.  Informative References
  Acknowledgments
  Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

  Remote participation for IETF in-person meetings has evolved over
  time from email-only to live chat and audio streaming, and, from
  there, to a fully online meeting system that is tightly integrated
  with the in-room session and enables interactive audio and video
  participation.  Remote participation has historically been free for
  remote attendees.

  Given this more full-blown participation option, the IETF has started
  to see an increase in the number of remote participants.  This
  increase can be explained by the ease with which new participants can
  join a meeting or only attend selected parts of the meeting agenda,
  and also by a decrease in the perceived need to attend every meeting
  in person.  Financial considerations may also be a factor.  In order
  to better understand these trends, the IETF started to require
  registration for remote participation, still without any registration
  fee applied.

  With the move to fully online meetings in 2020 and 2021, however,
  there was no distinction between remote and on-site participants for
  those meetings.  Because IETF meeting costs and other costs still
  needed to be covered, a meeting fee was charged for remote
  participants, replacing the free participation that was previously
  available for all remote attendees.

  The introduction of a fee for remote participation raised concerns
  about the potential impact on both those who regularly attend IETF
  meetings remotely and those who are considering attending an IETF
  meeting for the first time.  In both cases, even a small registration
  fee can be a barrier to participation.

2.  Principle of Open Participation

  This document outlines the principle of open participation that the
  IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC) is expected to incorporate into
  decisions about the registration fee structure for remote
  participation.

  The principle is simple: there must be an option for free remote
  participation in any IETF meeting, regardless of whether the meeting
  has a physical presence.  Related events collocated with an IETF
  meeting are part of the IETF's open process [RFC3935] and are
  encouraged to follow this principle as well, if they offer remote
  participation at all.

  This principle aims to support the openness principle of the IETF as
  defined in [RFC3935]:

  |  Open process - any interested person can participate in the work,
  |  know what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on the
  |  issue.  Part of this principle is our commitment to making our
  |  documents, our WG mailing lists, our attendance lists, and our
  |  meeting minutes publicly available on the Internet.

  While [RFC3935] explicitly notes that this principle requires our
  documents and materials to be open and accessible over the Internet,
  it was primarily written with email interactions in mind when talking
  about participation.  This document extends this principle to
  explicitly cover remote participation at meetings.  Particularly in
  this context, openness should be seen as open and free.

  This document does not stipulate that all IETF meetings or related
  IETF events must have a remote participation option, because there
  could be technical or other reasons why that might not be possible.
  However, if remote participation is provided, there should always be
  a free option to make the process as open as possible.  At a minimum,
  working group sessions, BoFs, and the administrative plenary are
  expected to provide a remote participation option.

  Note that this document does not specify the implementation details
  of the free option and leaves this to the LLC.  At the time of
  publication, an approach to request a fee waiver was implemented.

  Moreover, in order to fully remove barriers to participation, any
  free registration option must offer the same degree of interactivity
  and functionality available to paid remote participants.
  Specifically, it must not be possible to identify participants that
  used the free option.  However, of course this does not mean that all
  services must be provided for free to participants using the free
  registration option, but only those services that are provided as
  part of the regular registration.  Offering additional services to a
  subset or all participants at an additional charge is still possible,
  e.g., if special needs are required.  However, to promote
  inclusivity, whether those services can also be offered without
  charge for those who are in need and cannot afford the fee should be
  considered.

  The free option must be clearly and prominently listed on the meeting
  website and registration page.  If the free option requires
  additional registration steps, such as applying for a fee waiver,
  those requirements should be clearly documented.  In particular, to
  avoid any potential negative implications on inclusivity, any
  personal information that is collected with respect to the use of the
  free remote participation option must be kept confidential.

3.  Financial Impact

  Fully online meetings as well as remote participation incur expenses,
  as do other services that the IETF provides.  This includes items
  such as mailing lists, document access via the datatracker or other
  online platforms, as well as support for videoconferencing (e.g.,
  Meetecho).  Meeting fees are a way to distribute these and other
  operating costs of the IETF among participants, even though they do
  not fully offset the costs of either holding the meeting or operating
  the IETF.  As such, the intention of this document and the principle
  stated herein is not to make remote participation free for everyone,
  but to always offer a free remote option that enables remote
  participation without any barriers other than the application for
  free registration when the registration fee is a barrier to
  participation.  This principle applies to remote participation only,
  thereby providing one free option for participation.  In-person
  participation is not in scope for this document as the cost
  considerations are broader than just the registration fee.

  Changes to the IETF's fee structure or overall funding model are not
  in scope for this document.  As defined in [RFC8711], it is the IETF
  LLC's responsibility to manage the IETF's finances and budget and as
  such "[t]he IETF LLC is expected to act responsibly so as to minimize
  risks to IETF participants and to the future of the IETF as a whole,
  such as financial risks."  Further, it is the responsibility of the
  IETF LLC Board "to act consistently with the documented consensus of
  the IETF community" [RFC8711], taking into account agreed principles
  like the one described in this document.

  If unlimited free remote participation is determined to adversely
  affect financial sustainability of the IETF, e.g., if the number of
  paying participants or the cost of free participation emerges as a
  significant factor, the LLC is expected to implement additional
  measures to manage these costs.  This document does not and cannot
  restrict the LLC in its financial responsibility and therefore does
  not impose any limitation on the use of appropriate measures.  If the
  LLC decides to implement additional measures, they should share their
  decision and rationale with the community and consider whether
  community consultation as specified in Section 4.4 of [RFC8711] is
  needed "to obtain consensus-based community input on key issues".
  Further, they should describe the implemented process in sufficient
  detail for participants to make an informed decision about use of the
  free option.

  As discussed in the next section, assessment of eligibility is
  difficult.  Consequently, any limit on the number of available free
  registrations, which likely requires an assessment of eligibility,
  can cause unfairness and negatively impact openness, which should be
  considered seriously in any LLC decision.  As such, this document
  defines the principle of free participation but leaves implementation
  details to the LLC.  Specifically, it does not provide guidance on
  appropriate measures against misuse, as any measures need to be
  adapted to the specific problem in a specific situation in order to
  minimize both the financial risk and its impact on openness and
  inclusivity.

4.  Considerations on Use and Misuse of a Free Participation Option

  This document does not provide specific requirements on when it is
  appropriate for an IETF community member to use or not use the free
  option to remotely attend a meeting.  The purpose of the free option
  is to enable everybody who is interested in participation to join
  meetings without the meeting fee imposing a financial barrier.  These
  cases cannot be limited to a certain group, like students or "self-
  funded" participants, nor to any other specific restrictions like the
  number of meetings previously attended or previous level of
  involvement.  The purpose is simply to maximize participation without
  barriers in order to make the standards process as open as possible.

  It is expected that participants who have financial support to use
  the paid regular registration option will do so.  Paying a
  registration fee is a way for their sponsor to support the
  sustainability of the IETF.  For example, a higher late payment
  charge can be used to maximize this financial support.  However, this
  document does not comment on the actual payment structure of the IETF
  meeting fee other than requiring a free remote option.  The fee
  payment structure is set by the IETF LLC such that the viability of
  the IETF and the ability of IETF participants to work productively
  within the IETF can be ensured.

  The LLC is responsible for ensuring the financial stability of the
  IETF; therefore, they should monitor trends in the use of the free
  participation option that could endanger the viability of the IETF
  and, if necessary, manage the associated costs.  Aggregated data on
  the number and percentage of free registrations used should be
  published, as this will permit analysis of the use and change in use
  over time of the free registration option without revealing personal
  information.

  As the principle defined in this document aims to promote openness
  and thereby enhance participation, an increase in use of free
  registrations is a success, because it is likely a sign of increased
  interest and not necessarily a sign of misuse.  The increase should
  not be linked to the number of paid registrations.  In particular,
  the number of paid registrations may decrease for various reasons
  other than misuse, such as restrictions on travel to physical
  meetings due to cost savings or environmental reasons, general cost
  savings and lesser focus on standardization work, or simply loss of
  business interest.  Such trends can impact the sustainability of the
  IETF due to its dependency on meeting fees to cross-finance other
  costs, independent of use of the free registrations.

5.  Security Considerations

  This document introduces no new concerns for the security of Internet
  protocols.

6.  IANA Considerations

  This document has no IANA actions.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

  [RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
             BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.

7.2.  Informative References

  [RFC8711]  Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
             the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
             BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.

Acknowledgments

  Thanks to everybody involved in the SHMOO Working Group discussion,
  especially Brian Carpenter, Jason Livingood, Lars Eggert, and Charles
  Eckel for proposing concrete improvements and their in-depth reviews.

Authors' Addresses

  Mirja Kühlewind
  Ericsson
  Email: [email protected]


  Jon Reed
  Akamai Technologies
  Email: [email protected]


  Rich Salz
  Akamai Technologies
  Email: [email protected]

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.fnord.one. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.