Thank you very much for the timely response.
*** Ole: I don't see the items listed as being "at odds" with
anything, they are simply reasons why it might be a good idea to
have a badge policy, but:
"Why might it be a good idea?" is not the question of the week. The
question of the week is about process and transparency. And,
apparently, whether we allow the local host (or hotel) to dictate how
we run our meetings.
I cannot tell you at this stage if this was a hotel requirement, a
host requirement (as part of their government approval to host this
meeting) or a combination of both.
This is disappointing, if not distressing. I asked the IAOC about
this in private mail on Tuesday morning -- at a normal meeting, surely
three days would be enough time to discern who was responsible and get
a clear public explanation.
Instead, the confusion just keeps growing. Last night, we heard that
it is a host requirement. Now we're apparently not sure if it's the
host or the hotel.
To be clear, we did not have a discussion in the IAOC about this in
advance of the meeting.
Thank you for being clear that this change did not originate with the
IAOC. That helps scope the discussion. (And, contrary to my
statement above, it does offer some clarity.)
I consider it a /minor/ annoyance... I prefer to leave this to the
secrtariat and the local host as a matter of implementation detail.
I will take this as explanation for why you did not push back on the
host (or hotel) earlier, rather than as an attempt to start a
conversation about the reasonableness of such a change in general.
You have now heard that others think this is a more serious matter.
Given the absence of a credible explanation from the host (or hotel)
and consultation with the community, will the IAOC, as I called for in
my earlier message, please tell the host (or hotel) "we want to have a
normal meeting" and tell the guards to back down?
-- Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf