RFC 9501

RFC 9501: Open Participation Principle regarding Remote Registration Fee 🎀

okay bestie, this is RFC 9501 💖, published by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) in December 2023 ✨. It's a Best Current Practice (BCP 239 🌈, ISSN 2070-1721), so it's official guidance for how the community should do things, not just an idea someone had. The authors are M. Kühlewind from Ericsson, J. Reed, and R. Salz from Akamai Technologies 🧚. Its title block doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates.

Abstract 🦋

okay so the abstract says this doc takes the open process principle from RFC 3935 and goes one step further 💅. there must be a free option for online participation in IETF meetings and, if possible, in related IETF-hosted events. it's giving "everyone gets a seat at the table" 🫶

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 got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). more info on BCPs is in Section 2 of RFC 7841 💜

info about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to give feedback on it is 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, because 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 🍓

okay so remote participation for IETF in-person meetings has glowed up a LOT 🦋. it started as email-only, then grew into live chat and audio streaming, and then into a full online meeting system that's tightly integrated with the in-room session and lets people do interactive audio and video. historically, remote participation has been free for remote attendees 💖

because this option is way more full-blown now, the IETF has seen more remote participants 📈. that's because it's so easy to join a meeting, or to only attend the parts of the agenda you care about, and people feel less need to go to every meeting in person. money can be a factor too 💸. to better understand these trends, the IETF started requiring registration for remote participation, still with no registration fee 🫶

then came the move to fully online meetings in 2020 and 2021 🥺. there was no difference between remote and on-site participants for those meetings. meeting costs and other costs still had to be covered, so a meeting fee was charged to remote participants, which replaced the free participation that had been available to all remote attendees before 😭

the fee raised concerns about how it could affect people who regularly attend IETF meetings remotely and people who are thinking about 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, whether or not 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 too, 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.

ok so [RFC3935] explicitly notes that this principle requires documents and materials to be open and accessible over the Internet 🌸. but it was mainly written with email interactions in mind when it talks about participation. this doc extends the principle to explicitly cover remote participation at meetings 💜. in this context especially, openness should be seen as open and free 🔥

this document does not say that all IETF meetings or related IETF events must have a remote participation option, because there could be technical or other reasons that makes that impossible 🙈. however, if remote participation is provided, there should always be a free option to keep 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 doesn't specify the implementation details of the free option and leaves that to the LLC 💅. at the time of publication, an approach to request a fee waiver was implemented 🎀

also, to fully remove barriers to participation, any free registration option must offer the same degree of interactivity and functionality that paid remote participants get 🔥. specifically, it must not be possible to identify participants who used the free option 🙈. but this does NOT mean every service has to be free for people using the free registration option, only the services that come with the regular registration 💖. offering additional services to a subset or all participants at an additional charge is still possible, for example if special needs are required 👑. however, to promote inclusivity, it should be considered whether those services can also be offered without charge to people who are in need and can't afford the fee 🌈

the free option must be clearly and prominently listed on the meeting website and the registration page 📣. if the free option needs extra registration steps, like applying for a fee waiver, those requirements should be clearly documented 📜. and to avoid any potential negative effects on inclusivity, any personal information collected for the free remote participation option must be kept confidential 🤫🫶

3. Financial Impact 💸

fully online meetings and remote participation cost money, same as the other services the IETF provides 😭. that includes things like mailing lists, document access through the datatracker or other online platforms, and support for videoconferencing (e.g., Meetecho) 🧚. meeting fees are a way to spread these and other operating costs of the IETF across participants, even though they don't fully cover the cost of holding the meeting or running the IETF 💅. so the point of this document and its principle is NOT to make remote participation free for everyone 🙅‍♀️. the goal is to always offer a free remote option with no barriers other than applying for free registration, for when the registration fee is a barrier to participation 💖. this principle applies only to remote participation, which gives one free option for participation. in-person participation is out of scope here, since cost considerations are broader than just the registration fee 🌸

changes to the IETF's fee structure or overall funding model are out of scope for this document ✨. as defined in [RFC8711], it's 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's 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 in this document 👑

if unlimited free remote participation is determined to adversely affect the financial sustainability of the IETF, for example if the number of paying participants or the cost of free participation becomes 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, so it doesn't impose any limit on using 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 enough detail for participants to make an informed decision about using the free option 💜

as discussed in the next section, assessing eligibility is difficult 🥺. so any limit on the number of available free registrations, which likely requires an assessment of eligibility, can cause unfairness and hurt openness, and any LLC decision should take that seriously 💅. this is why this document defines the principle of free participation but leaves the implementation details to the LLC 🎀. specifically, it doesn't give guidance on appropriate measures against misuse, because any measures need to be adapted to the specific problem in a specific situation, so they minimize both the financial risk and the impact on openness and inclusivity ✨

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

okay so this section is lowkey the vibe check 🫶 This document does not give any specific rules for when an IETF community member should or shouldn't use the free option to attend a meeting remotely. The whole point of the free option is that anyone who's interested in participating can join a meeting without the meeting fee being a financial barrier 💖 And it's not limited to a certain group, like students or "self-funded" participants. It's also not limited by how many meetings you've attended before or how involved you've been already 🌸 The goal is simply to maximize participation without barriers, so the standards process stays as open as possible 🦋

Now, participants who have financial support to pay for the regular registration option are expected to do so 💅 Paying the registration fee is how their sponsor helps keep the IETF sustainable, and that's iconic behavior 👑 For example, a higher late payment charge can be used to maximize this financial support 💰 Still, this document doesn't say anything about the actual payment structure of the IETF meeting fee, other than requiring a free remote option 🙈 The IETF LLC sets the fee structure so that the IETF stays viable and participants can keep working productively within the IETF ✨

The LLC is responsible for the IETF's financial stability, so they're the ones who should keep an eye on trends in use of the free participation option that could threaten the IETF's viability. If needed, they can also manage the related costs 🧚 It's also a good idea to publish aggregated data on the number and percentage of free registrations used. That lets people analyze how the use of the free registration option changes over time, and it does this without revealing any personal information 🔥

Here's the big takeaway, bestie: the principle in this document is all about openness and boosting participation, so an increase in free registrations counts as a success 🎉 It's most likely a sign of growing interest, not a sign of misuse 💜 That increase also shouldn't be tied to the number of paid registrations 🙅‍♀️ The number of paid registrations can drop for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with misuse, like restricted travel to physical meetings for cost savings or environmental reasons, general cost savings, less focus on standardization work, or simply a loss of business interest 🌈 And those trends can affect the IETF's sustainability, since the IETF depends on meeting fees to cross-finance other costs, no matter how much the free registrations are used ⭐

---

5. Security Considerations 🔐

This document introduces no new concerns for the security of Internet protocols. Honestly, no new security drama here. Just don't let the free option turn into a loophole for chaos, periodt 💀

---

6. IANA Considerations 🧾

This document has no IANA actions. Nothing to register, nothing to update, nothing for IANA to stress about 🌸

---

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 🫶

Huge thank-yous to everybody involved in the SHMOO Working Group discussion 💖 Special shoutout to Brian Carpenter, Jason Livingood, Lars Eggert, and Charles Eckel for proposing concrete improvements and doing such in-depth reviews. You're all absolutely iconic ✨

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