On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 07:47:20PM +0000, Stephan Wenger wrote: > > I’m in favor of validating the address, for example by sending some form of credential to it; without the credential, only listening/reading access is granted. Doesn’t have to be bullet-proof, but using example@xxxxxxxxxxx shouldn’t work. This is obviously in order to obtain one semi-traceable record of the participant. > > We don't do that for in-person participants, because we no longer even collect the email address on the blue sheets. (We do it for meeting registration, of course, but we don't have a way to pair that with participation in any given part of the meeting, so the IPR issue is harder to argue by analogy here.) > And 5) click-through of the Note Well (unless that’s done in some other phase of the remote participation, like when signing-in to meetecho). Again for--I hope obvious--IPR related reasons. > We _certainly_ don't do that for in-person meetings. We put the Note Well up and assume that anyone who is in the room and who makes a Contribution in any way is aware of it. Joining the meeting virtually has the same property, no? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx