On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, John C Klensin wrote:
Ole, the obvious question here can be stated more or less as
(1) The sponsor wants to expose a community in which they are
interested to our work.
This was the case in Japan, yes. But I will remind you that we
already have a "newcomers" program in place, and I do not believe
that the event in question caused any extra burden on anyone.
(It could be argued that the host SHOULD have done something
special for this group, and maybe they did, I am not sure, but
that's a different matter).
(2) We have little expectation that the community intended to be
exposed will turn into long-term active/contributing participants
and few (if any) of them are active, contributing, but non-attending
This was not known, but in any case it's not the only consideration.
Knowledge of what WE do can benefit THEM and benefit US in the long
run. The example cited was the Japanese auto industry which, like many
other industries, is embarking on a path of "Internet stuff" and it
would probably be a good idea if they coordinated some of this work
with us, don't you think? If they are putting IP in your next car it's
probably a good idea that it's our kind of IP if you know what I mean.
(3) Accommodating the sponsor's desires increases costs (travel time
and expense, effective meeting length, costs of trying to educate
those who won't come back) to regular, active, contributing
participants. That is independent of the costs to the IASA, which
presumably do not increase and, depending on how one counts would go
down by the amount of sponsorship (assuming the sponsor were to
condition sponsorship on that "exposure" arrangement). If the
sponsor merely expresses a preference but will sponsor one way or
the other, the parameters of the equation may become more clear.
The day pass experiment was started in Hiroshima, but there is no
connection between a particular choice of location and this
experiment, other than the fact that it happened for the first time in
Japan. As has been explained many times on this list, Hiroshima was
NOT chosen because the host had a strong desire to go there, but
rather because it was one of a small number of AVAILABLE locations at
the time when the host stepped in to rescue the meeting. I am willing
to bet you a very nice bottle of sake that next time we go to Japan we
will be back in Yokohama (and I will arrange another organ demo of
Fisk Opus 110).
Obviously, the day-pass experiment had to apply to everyone, not just
the "target group" in this particular case.
Now I don't assume that the IAOC has made these decision
incorrectly. But I would like to understand the reasoning that,
it would appear, has the regular and active participants paying
for the education and/or entertainment of tourists.
See my response to (1). It's already happening and has been happening
for some time. This education is a) not related to meeting location
and b) is not directly linked to the day-pass experiment other than
in the obvious way in the case of Japan. (Your Japanese boss is less
likely to let you go and observe a meeting for a whole week as
compared to one day).
Ietf mailing list