doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 307 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9501.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9501.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..735daf0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9501.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,307 @@
+
+
+
+
+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