Re: [79all] IETF Badge

mstjohns@comcast.net Fri, 12 November 2010 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB0A3A6A9C for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:44:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFvU-OzXFGAb for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:44:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBFB3A6A9A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:44:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta22.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.73]) by qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id VnlM1f0041ap0As581lUP3; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:45:28 +0000
Received: from sz0152.wc.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.58.218]) by omta22.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id W1lU1f0064iWGLU3i1lUdi; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:45:28 +0000
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:45:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: mstjohns@comcast.net
To: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <1106719229.799545.1289526328086.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <E9C32F7A-8A85-44E9-AA4F-055B3C284C2D@isoc.org>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_799544_1867598483.1289526328085"
X-Originating-IP: [114.255.46.104]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.5_GA_2431.RHEL5_64 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/6.0.5_GA_2427.RHEL4)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:44:57 -0000

Hi Ray - 

When did the community decide that this was a prohibited thing? Or that we were concerned enough with it to post security to make sure the badge matched the person? 

I can think of several IETFs where the badge name did not match the person including the Stanford IETF where there were a dozen or so "Milo Medin"s. 

While I appreciate the hotel's and/or host's efforts on our behalf to secure our belongings, I believe its for us to decide our attendance policy - not them. And lest you wax poetic about paid attendees, I will note that the badges were paid for. 

Here's what I'm hearing - 

The host/hotel/some other organization imposed conditions without consulting the IAOC. We didn't have much choice. If that's the case - assign the blame to the host/hotel and move on. We as a community generally understand re-routing in the face of network/operations issues. Especially, please avoid the apologist role for the outside forces. 


If the IAOC was consulted and approved this without passing it by the community, stand up straight and take your lickings and stop trying to pretend it's what we've always done. It's embarrassing. 

If there's a third case I missed please feel free to enlighten me. 

Mike 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ray Pelletier" <rpelletier@isoc.org> 

Yesterday, 3 people were stopped by security and upon examination it emerged that they were not paying attendees but rather using the credentials of other people.