--On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 14:04 -0400 Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > Are we validating the email address in some way? > If we are not, I don't see the point of the *-required in any > of those places. >... Michael (and others), I'm happy to let the IESG manage this rather than getting into an orgy of nit-picking and micro-managing, but I think there are at least two separate reasons for wanting remote participants to register and that, which the desired information may overlap, confusing the two is probably not helpful. The two are: (1) For reasons related to IPR policy and issues (including the "Note Well", but remember it is a summary of policies and pointer to them, not the policies themselves) and in case questions arise as to who or what is influencing IETF decisions, we just need to know who is making Contributions and influencing, or trying to influence, the IETF. For that purpose, I believe the information we should be collecting from remote participants and the mechanisms used to validate that information should be as nearly identical to the information obtained from registrants for on-site attendance. As I've said earlier, I prefer that we make at least a nominal charge as part of the verification process. I also prefer that we encourage registration in advance of the meeting, possibly even providing a reduced fee for advanced registration (as we do for conventional registrations). I also believe that this is "one person, one registration" and that separate registrations for use of the in-person facilities (presumably including access to cookies) and remote ones are neither desirable nor appropriate. Especially if remote registrations are going to continue to be free and the forms offered when one first tries to access Meetecho as a participant during a given meeting, the number of questions asked should be kept to a minimum to avoid forcing would-be participants in a session to spend any more time than absolutely necessary filling out forms rather than contribution. (2) Almost independent of the above, there are lots of reasons to try to obtain demographic or opinion information from remote participants. Information of that type might help to inform decisions about meeting locations, reasons why people are participating remotely rather than attending meetings in person, etc. If we are not concerned about poll-stuffing, that information might reasonably be collected anonymously. Certainly the incentives for being able to identify and authenticate a participant are different from those above. It can also be collected rather more at leisure, including using post-meeting surveys similar to the used for registrants in the past. Again, I'm happy to let the IESG (assisted by staff and the IAOC as they deem appropriate) sort out the details, but several recent comments imply that some of the reasons for registering remote participants are getting confused. Finally, apologies for singing this song again, but, if we are going to encourage remote participation hubs in which people come together at a remote location to participate in (and contribute to) an IETF meeting going on at the same time, we'd best be really sure that registration and identification rules for such participants are clear, consistent, and integrated with whatever tools are relevant. best, john