> On May 11, 2017, at 8:14 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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.) Collecting an email address as part of the registration process does not mean that the email address needs to appear in the proceedings. Russ