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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Thanks to John et al for complaining, because otherwise I wouldn't
have known until I tried to connect to Meetecho that remote registration
was needed. I mean, why would I bother to read a routine message about
remote participation details more than half an hour in advance?

Also, when you do register, why does it *require* your postal address and
telephone number, which have no relevance or value? (I can see why they
are needed for physical attendees.)

And why does the confirmation email have a bunch of text starting thus:
"You can pay the registration fee on site..."?

Regards
   Brian

On 01/04/2016 07:29, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 16:37 -0800 Melinda Shore
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/30/16 12:22 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
>>> 1. Individuals are required to register for the meeting to
>>> observe or participate via Meetecho.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand this correctly.  Does this mean
>> that somebody is going to have to register after the meeting
>> to be able to watch archived recordings?  That doesn't
>> seem correct.  If it's not correct, why does someone have
>> to register to passively watch a session?  Will the standalone
>> audio streams still be available during sessions?
> 
> See separate, related, note, but add to Melinda's questions:
> 
> A registration requirement for remote participants is a major
> policy change and one for people who merely want to passively
> observe is something I believe the community has several times
> concluded is inappropriate given privacy, etc., concerns.  So,
> who made this decision and how?  Unless the answer involves a
> community discussion and Last Call or equivalent process that I
> missed (and apparently Melinda did too), if the answer to "who
> decided" involves anyone in the IETF Leadership, would they
> please offer to resign?
> 
> If it isn't clear, despite advocating for remote participant
> registration for years (and being clearly in the rough), I think
> this way of handling and announcing the decision is outrageous.
> 
>     john
> 
> 
> .
>