ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?

2007-07-29 16:02:07
Jordi,

You're being unrealistic as you usually are on this topic. I'm going to
reply to couple of points in this thread in one message for the sake of
brevity.

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi John,

I didn't said that operating a meeting outside US is cheaper than in US. I
said that the cost for *participants* is lower.

In fact, I know that a meeting in US is cheaper for the IETF, by the simple
fact that meeting rooms aren't charged, which is not true probably in most
of the other parts of the world.

The meeting  rooms are included in the the room block. if you don't make
the room block Then there's a penalty associated with that. If for
example everyone decides to stay in another hotel then you pay for the
meeting space. We could pay for the meeting space in exchange for a
lower room rate, but either way you slice it the hotel has a minimum
number they need to make on a meeting of a gived size and duration and
they won't go below that.

I also indicated that this is the reason why many sponsors prefer to have
the meetings in US, because it becomes cheaper to them, and one more reason
to split the "sponsor" from the "host" function and arrange the meetings in
venues not tied to a specific sponsor, in order to be able to have them more
frequently outside US.

What this means is that we may need to increase the registration fee.

You're just moving costs around, it's unlikely to make anything cheaper.
If cost of hosting is more expensive in a given location and the
participants will bear that additional cost under your model, your
assertion is that it will be cheaper due to some of them having lower
travel costs. Again that strikes me as unrealistic. the meeting fee
doesn't have to get that much bigger before it eclipses either travel or
lodging costs as the major expense.

What's more you're missing the heart of the issue. Which in my opinion
is that the operation of the overhead functions that are the general
ietf infrastructure are funded out of the meeting fees which means the
amount made on the meeting has to exceed the actual costs by order of
50%. At the sane time, the organization is if you haven't noticed
shrinking and it's character is changing. It has more professional
standards folks and fewer of the students, academics and network
operators that made it interesting to me 10 years ago. Pushing  higher
costs onto potential attendees isn't likely to attract more of them.

AND
THIS IS THE RIGHT THING DO TO in order to evenly share the costs between ALL
the participants, but only if the sharing of event locations is also FAIR.
Otherwise, more people traveling from other regions to US means more cost
from them, which is not fairly shared among ALL the participants.

Your basic beef appears be not that it's cheaper travel-wise from the
perspective of some participants to hold the meeting outside the US (if
it was you wouldn't be advocating for meetings in South America or
Africa which don't have significant historical participation) but rather
that the host sponsored model can require a significant capital outlay
to make the meeting work in some potential destinations.

Now I know you offered to host a meeting back in the CNRI days so
perhaps you can share from direct experience what it would have cost you
under the current model to host the meeting in Spain?

The poor network infrastructure is not only a question of the links. It is a
question of having a good or bad network, like the problem that we had all
this week with the DHCP. Having a good link the network was still unusable
60% of the time.

I don't believe the network was unusable 60% of the time. perhaps you
are engaging in hyperbole?

It is also a question of good or bad luck, and this may
happen anywhere.

The network runs smoothly in the hands of the most experienced operators
with as much advance planning as is feasible. These things have costs.
The best effort volunteer model in conjunction with an accommodating
host has produced the best networks the IETF has experienced. The IAD
and the IAOC are experimenting with contracted network services and
models which involve both volunteer and contractor effort. If you
provide them with feedback on your experiences that will no doubt be
valuable information.

A road construction can break a fiber everywhere in the
world and you only avoid this with a backup link, which for example I
believe ICANN doesn't compared with IETF.

The primary circuit was donated due to the diligent efforts of the
volunteers and at&t participants. Obtaining connectivity in arbitrary
locations is neither easy nor cheap. This location in Chicago was easier
than some.

Regards,
Jordi



In another message you wrote:

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
And in the concrete case of the Palmer house, the price of the hotel
was not worth to pay for, in my opinion. Rooms very old and dark, not
even having wardrobe to hang up the clothes :-(, in addition to the
construction issues.

Remember you're not just paying for the room you're paying for the
conference facility through the room block pricing...

If you have google you can relatively easily find some other recent
conference rates in the palmer house for comparison. You'll find I think
that the pricing structure varies based on the technical, space and
catering requirements for the conference some are higher, most are lower.

have fewer cookies and not block out dozens of conference rooms from
Saturday until Friday  and the room rate could be lower.

Yes, it was a very nice hotel (but I don't really mind that, because
I come there to work and keep doing my regular daily tasks), and had
an excellent gym, which I really appreciate, however, the one in
Prague was much better in my opinion (including a much better and
bigger gym).

Regards,
Jordi




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf