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

Jari Arkko <> Fri, 01 April 2016 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4161D12D0D8 for <>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 09:13:07 -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 2YoGECAiJHmM for <>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 09:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9444912D0CC for <>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 09:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297622CCBF; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:13:03 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id os72hoOxRnTH; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:13:02 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [] ( [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC1F2CC9A; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:13:01 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E3A2DB1C-0239-4F30-AF6D-D54126C2A754"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Jari Arkko <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:12:58 -0300
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: John C Klensin <>, Stephen Farrell <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
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 16:13:07 -0000

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.