That does not match the report I received from another attendee.
He commented on
2 days of travel to get there,
multiple 1 hour plus outages of external connectivity
and generally concluded that it would be a very bad choice of locale
for the IETF.
Personally, I find the view that we hold meetings where we have
active participants makes good sense.
And folks can actively participate by email / I-D writing without
Joel M. Halpern
At 11:00 AM 7/15/2006, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
Fred Baker said the following on 13/07/2006 13:38:
> My point is that it is not about the price of the hotel, nor is it
> about taking the Internet gospel to those who haven't been able to
> participate in its development [...]
> It's about having productive meetings in an atmosphere conducive to
The place where we had the ICANN meeting in Marrakech provided fast
connectivity, very good mobile phone coverage and all you would need for
a productive meeting, despite the fact that it was located in Africa.
This is a counter example to what your are trying to demonstrate. There
are many places places in Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America where
you could have a productive meeting. One only needs to look for them.
In terms of image, I tend to think that it would indeed help the IETF to
have meetings outside the Northern America and European regions. It is
not so much about spreading the Internet gospel - others do it better -
although it would help. It is more in terms of interacting with the
local community to find out what they expect to come out of a
standardization process. The hypothesis by which whatever is good for
the Northern hemisphere is automatically fine for the rest of the world
seems slightly colonialist to me.
Patrick Vande Walle
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list