RE: Registration details for IETF 108

[Larry Masinter <LMM@xxxxxxx>]

It’s pretty difficult to bring  an in-person surrogate to disrupt an in-person meeting,

But I think the concern of sponsored disruption of online-only meetings

might be mitigated by requiring payment information.

 

My understanding is that IETF mailing lists have at times been plagued by disruptions
from pseudonym sock puppets. That wouldn’t be the risk here, I’m just

pointing out the cause for concern.

 

 

From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 10:19 AM
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IETF Best Practices <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108

 

On Jun 1, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

I was seriously disconcerted when I realized that people that were replying to me from an anonymous Gmail address, with no signature except their given name, were in fact high ranking officers of some of the biggest companies around. Perhaps this is not perceived as a problem since most people here seem to have known each other for ages, but for people that do not know who is who, this approach is intransparent - a weird form of security by obscurity. It is another barrier to meaningful participation by outsiders.

 

It isn’t just you. I’ve been around awhile, but nobody can know everyone in an organization that regularly draws more than 1,000 in-person attendees, so this affects us all. For my own part, even though it would be more convenient for me to use a gmail or other address for IETF work, I don’t, exactly because I want to be transparent about who’s paying me to do this work. But, while I wish others would be equally transparent, we have no rule about it, and it would probably be difficult to enforce in any case. So we muddle through.

 

Your point about the practice being a barrier to participation is interesting, though. 

 

—John