Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Stephen Farrell <> Sun, 14 November 2010 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F703A6AF2 for <>; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:30:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GGwgeeu53ydL for <>; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:30:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:21b:21ff:fe3a:3d50]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F363A6B5E for <>; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:30:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A9B3E407E; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:31:19 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1289773879; bh=EaG9ab0jVTqmdX dCUoPTo10q13fEnemZEWnn0BAW2uo=; b=XAxQdY79QrZNs5Kf5hXpvNszdXDOvY /PeIi+tpdiZX8Lq4cu1irOPdAz+BaIBCjlcF/i9FieHNSghOkDl6HT7x+y0ZJ7GH hmEv/4imLNlcHRy86x2attenuauUmxWeE4RumYjUP7P088Fo1eoADPbfWybcFBQF FGWRECItutPll+QJPQ/SIxQnVcZqr7hweb8Soual/D/9ZWYCQSKddF7DKy/PfPvz em8OumkXZsysJnqiHgnMfLIcmPaRise2zt31xNCUWyIripkKoMImYmhYHGV9R0dl LCgr6W/deK5kJKPogWltjMgwhmVweHZL7sSiNoyXo8GHHY0eDo7806jA==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id ZMQkU7R4sHUh; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:31:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5AC9B3E4085; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:31:13 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:31:12 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lou Berger <>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ole Jacobsen <>,
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: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:30:57 -0000

On 14/11/10 22:19, Lou Berger wrote:
> On 11/12/2010 08:21 PM, Xiangsong Cui wrote:
>> As to IETF registration and badge, I would like to suggest (maybe this is crazy), IETF should design another type participant, I mean Guest Participant, they are free and more limited than one day pass. For example, the Guest Participant can only attend one session (half day or 2 hours), for the given WG seesion. And, the amount of Guest Participant should be strictly limited.
> 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?


And separately, we should try make it cost less to attend. Ticket
+ meting-hotel + flight total seems to be getting more and more
expensive (even though flights are mostly cheaper), leading to more
discussions like this. I'm not saying its easy to make it cheaper,
but I don't know that people have that as a goal. IMO they should.


> 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!)
> 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 contributor.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list