But when putting all under consideration even from that point of view, travel
(time and cost) is only one factor. Cost of facilities, facilities it self,
quality of service, cost for participants on site etc is also important and
often way lower in some of the locations not considered so far by IETF.
Attendance of the usual contributors is important. But that arguments seems to
have be rehashed endlessly. Still I have seen this year WG meetings organized
in NA and in a (far away) Asia location outside currently typical IETF
locations. There were more than double of active participants at the meeting
away from NA...
So I think so me of the basic assumptions may be revisited (or at least more
carefully stated) namely 1) that cost / time is really higher outside NA (and
sometimes selected European or Asian location) - it is often not true even
factoring in travel costs and travel time is a quite relative considerations 2)
that main contributors mostly come only to NA (and sometimes selected European
or Asian location) and that therefore we would not have active participants
when going there...
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
It may have got lost in this thread, but Fred has got the nub of the argument
here: the IETF's goal is to do its work as efficiently as possible, and that
means assembling at locations that are (on some sort of average) convenient for
our active participants.
In practical terms, that means assembling in countries or regions with a good
number of current participants. I show a pie chart at every plenary (a
tradition started by my predecessors) that gives a pretty strong indication of
what those countries or regions are. You saw the version of that pie chart from
IETF65 in the ISOC Board meeting in Marrakech. The IETF66 version is in the
Wednesday plenary proceedings from this week.
Outreach is important, and welcoming new active contributors is important, but
the dominant consideration is a location that is convenient and effective for
our current active contributors.
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 them
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
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
Ietf mailing list