💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc9501.txt captured on 2024-03-21 at 15:28:07.
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-12-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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: mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com
Jon Reed
Akamai Technologies
Email: jreed@akamai.com
Rich Salz
Akamai Technologies
Email: rsalz@akamai.com