Open Participation Principle regarding Remote Registration Fee
draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-09

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-08
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

### S3

* "costs considerations" -> "cost considerations"

* "in oder" -> "in order"

### Section 1, non-sequitur

"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 less strongly perceived need to attend every meeting in person, due to either financial reasons or other circumstances."

The "due to" implies a causal connection that doesn't make sense to me; the final clause seems pretty unrelated to the previous parts of the sentence. Financial reasons might well relate to a less strong perceived *ability* to attend -- but "need"? Perhaps something like,

"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 less strongly perceived need to attend every meeting in person. Financial reasons may also be a factor."

In my suggested rewrite I dropped "or other circumstances" because it doesn't add anything. 

### Section 2, vagueness of restriction of use of personal information

"any personal information that is collected with respect to the use of the free remote participation option must be kept confidential"

Shouldn't it say confidential *from whom*, and what the allowed and disallowed uses are? 

(I notice Éric Vyncke had a similar comment.)

Note I find the document a little confusing about the free option vs the fee waiver. I feel saying “a free option must be available” would have to list it as an equal option in the list of options to select from but it is somewhat hidden behind the fee waiver option. This will at least feel to the participant requiring these that these are “exceptional” and not part of the regular choice process. I know this is a feature but the document text makes it sound like a bug.

Much thanks to the authors and WG for this document -- I know that it was difficult to get this completed and to this state.

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-08

This must have been a very difficult to author document... So, congratulations to the authors, shepherd, and the SHMOO WG. The -08 has less hand-waving hence I am now balloting a NO OBJECTION.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Suresh Krishnan for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. 

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS

Like Paul Wouters, I find that there is some confusions between 'free option' and 'fee waiver', e.g., the I-D could clearly mention that "fee waivers" is just one way to have a "free option".

## Section 2

`must be kept confidential.` is probably underspecified: could it be visible to the IETF secretariat ? to the IETF LLC ?

## Section 3

`If unlimited free remote participation is determined` by who ?

`assessment of eligibility` to what ?

## Authors' Addresses

It seems that Rich's address is missing.

Re:

   With the move to fully online meetings in 2020 and 2021, however,
   there was no longer a distinction between remote and on-site
   participants for those meetings.  Since IETF meeting costs and other
   costs still had to be covered, a meeting fee was charged for remote
   participants, eliminating the free remote participation option at
   that time.

Is this factually correct?  Did the IESG/LLC have the option for remote fee waivers at the point that the Vancouver IETF meeting moved online at the last minute (if that is deemed to be an acceptable implementation policy)?  If not, then when was the fee-waiver option introduced for remote participation? 

I still think that this document has ended up being longer than it needs to be, e.g., sections 3 and 4 don't feel that helpful, and hence they somewhat read like they are stating they they are not telling the LLC how to do their job and at the same time proscribing how the LLC should do their job.

Regards,
Rob