Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Ole Jacobsen <> Thu, 11 November 2010 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69553A69B5; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:59:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.26
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iGeuYsowF-ac; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:59:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84033A6851; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABWT20yrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACiRXGlHoI+DQGZCoVKBIRahX4
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,183,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="215580070"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2010 14:58:36 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oABEwaBf014090; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:58:36 GMT
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:58:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Ole Jacobsen <>
To: Samuel Weiler <>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc:, The IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:59:05 -0000

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