Comments inline as appropriate.
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen(_at_)sprunk(_dot_)org]
|> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 5:33 AM
|> To: dassa(_at_)dhs(_dot_)org; ThomasGal(_at_)LumenVox(_dot_)com; 'John C
Klensin';
|> 'IETF Discussion'
|> Subject: Re: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!
|>
|> Thus spake"Dassa" <dassa(_at_)dhs(_dot_)org>
|> > |> -What kind of small city of such population has a large corporation
|> > |> willing to sponsor an IETF event?
|> > |> -How does making a big event take place in a small town help
|> > |> attendance?
|> >
|> > Large corporations also deal with the regional cities, PR coverage
|> > would still be effective and possibly more positive. I'm not sure
|> > that sponsors would take the location into too much account but may be
|> > influenced by a lower spend. It is an outreach gesture that may
|> > attract interest and additional participation.
|>
|> If the IETF's goal for meetings was to attract the press or
|> general public, that might be a valid point; AFAIK, it is not.
A subsidiary goal would always be to attract press if participation is to be
encouraged. Building up knowledge of the IETF within the Internet using
general public is also worthwhile. If more people knew of the IETF and the
work it accomplishes then they would be less inclined to consume
sub-standard offerings and have a clue when it comes to making purchase
decisions.
|> A sponsor might find that hotels and meeting rooms may be
|> cheaper in a smaller city, but that has to be balanced
|> against the cost of attendees'
|> flights, availability of venues, and other suitability factors.
Certainly true.
|> > |> As for a couple of your propositions:
|> > |>
|> > |> -People usually get paid less outside of large cities because the
|> > |> cost of living is less so I don't see how that has any bearing,
|> > |> other than forcing everyone, including people living in other small
|> > |> towns to travel extra, and certainly guaranteeing that more people
|> > |> have to travel rather than less.
|> >
|> > No, that is the perception that is often quoted and the reason given
|> > but is not always fact. I would normally travel less than most people
|> > working in a capital city.
|>
|> During the meeting, that might be true, but the concern is
|> getting _to and from_ said city. Unless the meeting is held
|> in SJ or DC, it's reasonable to assume that 99% of regular
|> attendees are from out of town.
If we accept that as a given and ignore the reasons for the statistic, why
hold meetings elsewhere? What is the motivation for holding meetings in
countries other than the States or other cities within the States?
|> Most major world cities are airline hubs with nonstop
|> international flights; that means most attendees can get
|> there in one hop and the remainder can usually get there in
|> two. For a small city, you are automatically adding another
|> flight to nearly all attendees, and typical airline pricing
|> means flying to a "small" city will double (or more) the
|> cost of tickets.
I don't understand how adding another hours flight doubles the cost of a
ticket. Either the main flights are very cheap or some places have
extremely expensive internal travel. But a valid point. I will have to look
into ticket pricing and see if this claim is justified. If it is, it means
the overall expenses no matter where the location would most likely end up
being similar.
|> And that's assuming that city even has enough air service to
|> meet the sudden demand; there are places in the US with
|> 100k+ residents that have 150 seats/day (or less) of air
|> service -- assuming they have an airport at all.
|> In such cases, nearly all attendees would end up flying to a
|> major city and then drive down, adding two days to the trip.
Careful consideration would have to be given to any touted location to
ensure facilities could handle the demand. Even major airports can have
issues with an unexpected increase in demand.
|> > The benefit would be those with sub-standard connections would have
|> > the opportunity to participate where otherwise they might not have the
|> > opportunity.
|>
|> Only for those people actually living in that small city,
|> which not statistically likely to include any IETF members
|> other than those employed by the sponsor.
I would be thinking those within the region, not just the host city would be
more likely to make the short trip to attend. A lot of people are more
willing to travel within their own country than overseas.
|> However, those IETF members who cannot attend (particularly
|> since you've increased the cost of doing so) might not be
|> able to participate if the venue doesn't have sufficient
|> bandwidth to support streaming the meeting.
I would think other savings would offset any increases in travel costs so
the overall cost for attendance would be similar. As mentioned previously,
even regional cities usually have sufficient bandwidth at the city centre to
meet any demands of an IETF conference. Cities without the needed
facilities would obviously not be considered.
|> > It would also assist with focusing on the issue of increasing
|> > broadband uptake and opportunities. It would certainly be a good PR
|> > exercise.
|>
|> It's not the goal of IETF meetings to do PR exercises, nor
|> would one week of demand be enough to convince the local
|> telco or regulators that increased deployment of broadband
|> is necessary.
You would be surprised by what can be done to motivate a telco. ;) Such a
meeting in itself would only be used as a catalyst. I do consider PR is one
of the goals of the IETF, I may be mistaken but I certainly hope not. It
would not be a high priority but it would certainly be within the scope of
the IETF. Considering sponsorship and the like it is fundamental.
Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf