Re: [79all] IETF Badge

[Ole Jacobsen <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Samuel Weiler wrote:

> Thank you very much for the timely response.
> 
> 
> "Why might it be a good idea?" is not the question of the week.  The question
> of the week is about process and transparency.  And, apparently, whether we
> allow the local host (or hotel) to dictate how we run our meetings.

*** Ole: See response from Henk and myself.
 
> 
> > I cannot tell you at this stage if this was a hotel requirement, a host
> > requirement (as part of their government approval to host this meeting) or a
> > combination of both.
> 
> This is disappointing, if not distressing.  I asked the IAOC about this in
> private mail on Tuesday morning -- at a normal meeting, surely three days
> would be enough time to discern who was responsible and get a clear public
> explanation.
>
> Instead, the confusion just keeps growing.  Last night, we heard that it is a
> host requirement.  Now we're apparently not sure if it's the host or the
> hotel.

*** Ole: What's the confusion?  See previous response. Why does it 
matter? Let's split the difference and call it a "local requirement"
 
> 
> I will take this as explanation for why you did not push back on the 
> host (or hotel) earlier, rather than as an attempt to start a 
> conversation about the reasonableness of such a change in general.
> 
> You have now heard that others think this is a more serious matter.

*** Ole: Yes, I've counted one+one. Out of 1,338 registered attendees.
> 
> Given the absence of a credible explanation from the host (or hotel) and
> consultation with the community, will the IAOC, as I called for in my earlier
> message, please tell the host (or hotel) "we want to have a normal meeting"
> and tell the guards to back down?

*** Ole: Why would we do that exactly? What part of this meeting is not normal?

> 
> -- Sam
> 
>