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.
Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail