On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, John Stracke wrote: > >>"Self-funded" is problematic, though: how do you tell the > >>difference between someone who really is paying his own way and > >>someone who's going to expense it? And what about a consultant > >>with his own small business; if he owns the business outright, and > >>the business pays the way, is that self-funded or not? > >> > >> > > > >Maybe a bit -- but, if you're self funded then you have no > >affiliation on your badge. > > > > So I could pass for self-funded by not telling putting down a company > name on my registration?
Yes. > >>I think other organizations make this kind of distinction work by > >>giving more rights to people who pay more; that would be the > >>opposite of what we want to do here. > >> > >> > > > >I was specifically thinking of SIGCOMM's student travel grant > >program -- in which the above is not the case. > > > > But "student" is a well-defined class, with a moderately good means to > check. "Self-funded" is neither. Former might still apply, to some extent. Of course "self-funded" price should probably be higher than "student" price, for obvious reasons. Certainly, I'd have qualified for "student" myself, but have always made my company pay the full price: the IETF needs the money more than my company, I've gathered. If the difference would be like 100-200 dollars, or whatnot, would people bother? Without company in the nametag, it would be for all to see, too. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
