ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?

2010-08-16 15:02:45
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, John C Klensin wrote:

Ole, the obvious question here can be stated more or less as
follows:

(1) The sponsor wants to expose a community in which they are
interested to our work.

This was the case in Japan, yes. But I will remind you that we
already have a "newcomers" program in place, and I do not believe
that the event in question caused any extra burden on anyone.
(It could be argued that the host SHOULD have done something 
special for this group, and maybe they did, I am not sure, but
that's a different matter).


(2) We have little expectation that the community intended to be 
exposed will turn into long-term active/contributing participants 
and few (if any) of them are active, contributing, but non-attending 
participants already.

This was not known, but in any case it's not the only consideration. 
Knowledge of what WE do can benefit THEM and benefit US in the long 
run. The example cited was the Japanese auto industry which, like many 
other industries, is embarking on a path of "Internet stuff" and it 
would probably be a good idea if they coordinated some of this work 
with us, don't you think? If they are putting IP in your next car it's 
probably a good idea that it's our kind of IP if you know what I mean.


(3) Accommodating the sponsor's desires increases costs (travel time 
and expense, effective meeting length, costs of trying to educate 
those who won't come back) to regular, active, contributing 
participants. That is independent of the costs to the IASA, which 
presumably do not increase and, depending on how one counts would go 
down by the amount of sponsorship (assuming the sponsor were to 
condition sponsorship on that "exposure" arrangement).  If the 
sponsor merely expresses a preference but will sponsor one way or 
the other, the parameters of the equation may become more clear.

The day pass experiment was started in Hiroshima, but there is no 
connection between a particular choice of location and this 
experiment, other than the fact that it happened for the first time in 
Japan. As has been explained many times on this list, Hiroshima was 
NOT chosen because the host had a strong desire to go there, but 
rather because it was one of a small number of AVAILABLE locations at 
the time when the host stepped in to rescue the meeting. I am willing 
to bet you a very nice bottle of sake that next time we go to Japan we 
will be back in Yokohama (and I will arrange another organ demo of 
Fisk Opus 110).

Obviously, the day-pass experiment had to apply to everyone, not just
the "target group" in this particular case.


 
Now I don't assume that the IAOC has made these decision
incorrectly.  But I would like to understand the reasoning that,
it would appear, has the regular and active participants paying
for the education and/or entertainment of tourists.

See my response to (1). It's already happening and has been happening 
for some time. This education is a) not related to meeting location 
and b) is not directly linked to the day-pass experiment other than
in the obvious way in the case of Japan. (Your Japanese boss is less
likely to let you go and observe a meeting for a whole week as 
compared to one day).


regards,
   john



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