Paris is hosted (including the WLAN), so there is at least 6 months
until it is needed
(is Nortel providing the Vancouver WLAN?).
OK, on a side note... a quick look back at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/directory.html enties since 2000 makes
me think we're still pretty successful at finding hosts for IETFs
OUTSIDE the US, but about 50-percent successful at finding hosts
INSIDE the US, and especially in Minneapolis...
IETF 47 - Adelaide, hosted by Connect.com.au
IETF 48 - Pittsburg, hosted by Marconi Systems
IETF 49 - San Diego, hosted by Cisco and Qualcomm
IETF 50 - Minneapolis, hosted by Lucent Technologies
IETF 51 - London, hosted by BT Exact
IETF 52 - Salt Lake City, hosted by Novell
IETF 53 - Minneapolis, hosted by Cable and Wireless
IETF 54 - Yokohama, hosted by Fujitsu and The WIDE Project
IETF 55 - Atlanta, hosted by Nokia
*** IETF 56 - San Francisco, not hosted ***
IETF 57 - Vienna, hosted by Telecom Austria
*** IETF 58 - Minneapolis, not hosted ***
IETF 59 - Seoul, hosted by KT/Korea Telecom and Samsung
*** IETF 60 - San Diego, not hosted ***
IETF 61 - Washington, DC, hosted by Alcatel
*** IETF 62 - Minneapolis, not hosted ***
IETF 63 - Paris, hosted by France Telecom
I remember wondering what was happening when IETF 56 was unhosted, but
hadn't thought about the topic since then (contrary to what my wife
and boss believe, I do NOT attend IETFs primarily for the T-shirts).
- I've been hearing continued discussion in the hallway of "X can't
get into the US for the IETF due to immigration issues". If we're more
successful finding sponsors outside the US than inside the US,
sponsorship may be yet another reason to move to a "two IETFs/year
outside the US" model.
FWIW, I found Carsten's note terrifying, but can't argue accuracy with
him:
Right now, if you need significant discussion in a WG, it seems you
have to schedule an interim.
It seems that we are pleased about every aspect of lower attendance at
IETF 62 EXCEPT the financial impact of lower registrations - fewer
tourists, participants who can actually get into the rooms to discuss
their drafts (remember Coya ejecting participants in San Diego so the
fire marshals wouldn't have to? remember draft authors who couldn't
crowd-surf into the rooms at all?), shorter trips to microphones,
easier to ambush people in the halls ... but having good in/out
connectivity is critical if we're inviting people to participate
remotely via audiocast/jabber.
- So - I'm wondering; have we gotten to the point where we HAVE to
have a meeting sponsor, who can provide a non-volunteer terminal
room/WLAN, in order to get work done?
See you guys in Paris,
Spencer
p.s. I was properly chastened by Brett's
Maybe you have an answer. But have you been on even one of the NOC
teams for IETF 58 through 62? If no -> Mod down 20 points, then
re-evaluate.
Is there a place to sign up, out of curiosity?
p.p.s. I started being a repeat-offender note-taker in Yokohama, where
sitting at the front as scribe was the easiest way to be sure I'd have
laptop power :-) - if we DO go off to the land of "reliable
connectivity = cable drops", this might make it easier to recruit
scribes, and especially jabber scribes - I always scribe and never
jabber-scribe because I can't spend time dorking with server
connectivity in working groups I care about!
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf