RE: [79all] IETF Badge

Xiangsong Cui <> Mon, 15 November 2010 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B1C3A6A27 for <>; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 18:29:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.129
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.366, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PnsUkRYxCRLD for <>; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 18:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6E03A6A20 for <>; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 18:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (szxga04-in []) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <> for; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:30:28 +0800 (CST)
Received: from c00111037 ([]) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <> for; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:30:28 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:30:26 +0800
From: Xiangsong Cui <>
Subject: RE: [79all] IETF Badge
In-reply-to: <>
To: 'Lou Berger' <>
Message-id: <082301cb846d$107e1070$317a3150$>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: zh-cn
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Thread-index: AcuESgScMU3m5VlKSJqcQDfeIjV5HAAH/FiA
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 02:29:59 -0000


Don't misunderstand me, although I'm telling a fantastic idea.

> Maybe I'm just old fashioned, at least from an IETF perspective, but why
> not just let them "drop in", i.e. attend the meeting without a badge?

I didn't say attending without a badge, I just said some guest may attend
IETF meeting wearing GUEST BADGE.
Notice "the applicant should explain why he/she should be issued the guest
badge there" in my message.

> I've always felt this served the community well and is not really
> different from our mailing list subscription policy.  (I hope no one
> proposes to start charging for that, but if you take the current
> trend/discussion a few steps farther, that's where we may end up!)

I didn't oppose charging for meeting, I just suggest we may allow a few
guest to attend IETF meeting (without fee) and myself would like to pay the
normal meeting fees.
For example, if IETF chair (or WG chair) wants to invite somebody to give
IETF community (or specific WG) some speaking during the meeting week (maybe
like Thursday speaking or some others), should the invited guy also register
and pay the money for the speaking? Maybe HE/SHE doesn't attend any other
IETF meeting.
So here I just said, there MAY be the possibility that Guest can attend the
meeting, I didn't say there MUST some guys who can attend IETF without fee

> Lou
> BTW There was one IETF, perhaps Columbus, where I attended just one day
> and I still paid the full amount.  Although, it cost a bit less, back
> then. IMO contributors will "do the right thing", and we should make it
> easy to be a lurker as they may turn into a direct or indirect

You did contribute to IETF community, maybe some other friends paid full fee
but didn't go to the meeting, they even didn't get any IETF service
(network, beverage, etc.).
All of you deserve my respect.