Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to
subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's what it
works out to be....
This view can be mapped to a classic model that would have significant
benefits for the IETF:
A "host" gets all sorts of marketing leverage out of the role in
producing an IETF.
There is nothing that requires that the event site management effort be
coupled with a particular host's venue.
If we moved to a model of having companies provide sponsorship funds, in
return for which they get appropriate marketing presence, then we could
have meeting venue management move to the sort of predictable and timely
basis -- ie, far enough ahead of time -- that has been a concern for
many years.
Amen! And maybe the meeting fees could actually go down
with enough sponsors. An additional room like the terminal
room (not out in the open) could be used.
Also, the IETF could maintain control of the
network if there were multiple sponsors instead
of a single host. They would not be allowed to ignore
the advice of the NOC team, and let the wireless meltdown
right off the bat.
d/
Andy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf