The point is that *if* we had more diversity along many of the discussed
lines, we'd be far better off. For instance, having people from multiple
organisations provide input to a last would be preferable to just a few.
Similarly with the other dimensions of diversity. When I talked to some of
the ISOC fellows last week, I realised peering is very different on different
continents.
Different doesn't generally mean good, in the peering case.
I think different is good and bad news (who is responsible?), but
mostly good to be detected, and hopefully corrected. It is bad for
IETF to loose participation just because experience levels or peering
are different.
There are plenty of examples of monopoly PTTs or regulators engaging
in behavior that impacts the usability of or availability of traffic
exchange, there's all sorts of market failures, and there's
deliberately uncompetitive practices from some of the participants. so
when we look at the diversity of experience for network operators not
all the diversity is a happy place.
All diverse participants are good for IETF even if majority were
uncompetitive, because no one is competitive to future experience. In
history some scholars tried to confense the majority of their theories
but were only understood in future because different minds. Some
countries are in past experience and some are in present and some may
be in future, but the IETF it is for all countries and it needs to
make fast communication between future and past, or make availability
for past components to communicate with future and verse versa,
May be the solution can be if participants got into *faster speed of
light* [RFC6921] [1] to make all countries participation in IETF
received at right times or at the similar level of experience, that
will make communicating with the IETF experiences easier,
[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg78376.html
AB