--On Sunday, May 24, 2009 11:42 AM -0700 Dave CROCKER
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
but often concluded that it is less important than other
concerns
As long as the host gets to choose the venue, other concerns
will remain secondary, including incremental travel time and
cost.
This was the key point that was, once again, explored the last
time we had a plenary discussion about venue.
Yes, exactly.
Let me see if I can ask the question in a slightly more
productive way.
Ray and IAOC:
I assume that, in each of these out-of-the-way cases, you have
asked potential hosts to pick locations that meet other
criteria, such as the airport one, and that they have said "no,
we won't sponsor except in our chosen location". Could you
confirm that?
I also assume that you have attempted to launch a "sponsor IETF
meetings" program on a "contribute to a fund" basis, as distinct
from "host this particular meeting", and either gotten no useful
response or discovered that host in-kind contributions in
specific locations dominate possible cash contributions. Can
you confirm that as well?
Finally, I assume that the IAOC has done an analysis, not only
of what it would cost us to abandon hosted meetings entirely,
but of what it would cost --both in absolute and meeting-fee
terms-- to say "no" to hosts who insisted on out of the way
locations. May we see that analysis not later than the plenary
in Stockholm?
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf