Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details

John C Klensin <> Fri, 01 April 2016 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B03812D669 for <>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kxg0d_ZxI4XF for <>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2D4112D0F3 for <>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1am2p7-0008Np-Pc; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 13:25:29 -0400
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 13:25:24 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Jari Arkko <>, Stephen Farrell <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 17:25:36 -0000


Many thanks, both for your note generally and for the request to
undo the registration requirement for this meeting if that is
possible.   Given that and as the person whose outrage at the
situation touched off these threads, I'd like to suggest that we
dial back the discussion now and trust Jari (and, as
appropriate, Tobias) to organize a more focused discussion as
soon as they consider appropriate and feasible.  

Unfortunately, it sometimes does require a mistake and
mini-crisis to bring fundamental issues to the front of the

thanks again,

--On Friday, April 01, 2016 13:12 -0300 Jari Arkko
<> wrote:

> For what it is worth, I do think changing the registration
> requirement without discussion or even an announcement was a
> mistake. I'm sorry.
> I do have a personal opinion in this topic, and it is that
> just like in the physical meeting, I mostly want to know who I
> am talking to. That shouldn't be a hard requirement,
> however, just like it isn't in, say, list discussion. And I
> certainly agree that when you are only observing there's
> even less requirement to do so. However, this is a complex
> matter involving, for instance, IPR, note wells, ability to
> get feedback from participants, understand who participates in
> the IETF, possibly an evolving IETF meeting fee model (see
> draft-arkko-ietf-trends-and-observations), privacy, and
> probably a few other aspects as well.
> I think we should have that discussion (again, but the world
> is evolving), and see where we end up. And the above was just
> my opinion, I'm sure we'll have other opinions.
> In the meantime (and with most of my leadership team members
> on airplanes), I've asked if we can change the requirement
> to a recommendation, and no longer require registration.
> Meetecho is working on it. Also, the secretariat  is changing
> the registration page so that it doesn't ask unnecessary
> questions from remote participants from those that want to
> register.
> Overall IAOC transparency question is worth another thread, I
> think.
> Jari