On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Samuel Weiler wrote:
> Thank you very much for the timely response. > > > "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. *** Ole: See response from Henk and myself. > > > 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. *** Ole: What's the confusion? See previous response. Why does it matter? Let's split the difference and call it a "local requirement" > > 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. *** Ole: Yes, I've counted one+one. Out of 1,338 registered attendees. > > 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? *** Ole: Why would we do that exactly? What part of this meeting is not normal? > > -- Sam > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
