Right, but we learned an important lesson: Access to the meeting *area* is useful not just for attendees, but also for their companions. Thus was born the now official Companion Program which is not a free ticket to the meetings, but does (for a modest fee) give access to the meeting area and even the opening reception. Ole > On 11 Jun 2020, at 14:04, Samuel Weiler <weiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> On Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:36:16 PM EDT Samuel Weiler wrote: >>> In any case, I think the Beijing debacle does not set precedent, since >>> that requirement was imposed by someone other than ourselves. Badge >>> checking is not normal practice at a normal IETF meeting. And the >>> Beijing meeting was not normal. >> >> The IETF held the meeting there knowing what the requirement would be, so no. >> The IETF made the choice. Every location is different. When the IETF decides >> to meet somewhere, then the IETF has determined that local conditions are >> acceptable. > > We knew about the network access control requirement (as demonstrated by the experiment in Maastricht). We did not know about the badge police. > > -- Sam > Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office: +1 415-550-9433 Cell: +1 415-370-4628 Web: protocoljournal.org E-mail: olejacobsen@xxxxxx E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Skype: organdemo
