Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Martin Rex <> Thu, 11 November 2010 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2596C3A697E for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:09:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.138
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.138 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ac2VIMkXDcdo for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:09:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A0A63A682F for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:09:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (26) with ESMTP id oABK9m1O016159 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:09:48 +0100 (MET)
From: Martin Rex <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
To: (Doug Ewell)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:09:47 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <E704C1D9CC7E4A5A88568E437799468E@DGBP7M81> from "Doug Ewell" at Nov 11, 10 12:12:07 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Scanner: Virus Scanner virwal08
X-SAP: out
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:09:30 -0000

Doug Ewell wrote:
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> > Is there is an unspoken concern in this discussion as to whether the
> > host wanted to take names based on what people were saying, in the case
> > they said something "objectionable"?
> Eliot Lear's question seems pertinent here.

But you do realize that, it is often suggested that people in WG
meetings and in the plenary state their name and affiliation
before saying something, and that for a couple of years now,
_all_ meetings use audio broadcast and are archived. 

Agreeably, stating your name and affiliation is considered a
courtesy, and there is no "IETF Police" enforcing it, but people
are regularly reminded of that courtesy.  :)

Protecting food and probably "temporarily parked" equipment
while feeding, getting water or queuing for the mike seems
like a concern, where the local host or hotel might be in
a better position to perform risk management/assessment.

So have the IAOC add a question to their questionary for
meeting locations about the security concerns of the local
host and hotel and their expected procedure to address
them, so that this can be communicated ahead of the meeting,
and be done with it (for this meeting) ?