> On Jun 9, 2020, at 5:01 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > This is all getting a bit objectionable. If charging for > remote attendees for IETF108 is not precedent setting, I > see no need to start to build a defensive infrastructure > (neither legal nor systems) around that emergency one-off > decision. Especially not one that's entirely at odds with > the IETF's tradition and goal of openness. I’m inclined to agree. Maybe I’m a Pollyanna, but ISTM the honor system should be sufficient. After all, that’s what we use for the in-person meetings and our world hasn’t collapsed. (No, really, for practical purposes it is. When was the last time you challenged someone for walking into a meeting unbadged? I think the one time we ever had people checking badges was in Beijing, and that was for other reasons.) Unless lack of registration revenue from 108 is an existential threat to the IETF — and I don’t think it is — it seems a worthy experiment to stick with radical openness. If I’m proven to be a naïve fool and experience shows we are overwhelmed by freeloaders, we can recalibrate for 109. But if experience shows people mostly don’t suck and we didn’t need the walls and moat, that’s a win. Or is this about something other than revenue, and if so, what? —John
