yes, I made a facetious posting because I sensed that we were discussing
outcomes on a basis of 'nothing happened' when in fact, I think by scale,
Australian participation reflects if not exceeds our numerical role in
standards development and Internet matters. There is reason to believe we
do accrete people by bringing a roadshow to town. Expensive way to accrete
matter. Australia is a G20 participant and a net donor into development of
standards worldwide, and ICT. So, its arguable "we didn't need the help" of
a local meeting.
At risk of alienating my comrades from locations seeking to attract an IETF
for local development/inclusiveness and the like reasons, I think John gets
to the nub of the matter: the wider community cost, borne by all attendees
as a 'silent tax' is really very high, for this outcome. We need to be
explicit this is what we're doing. The ISOC grants are probably a more cost
effective way of boosting participation from outlier economies right now.
So lets be explicit. This is a standards-setting body, which is discussing
outreach, inclusiveness, wider participation outcomes, and the cost
consequences on attendance where the core motivation is standards setting.
If the core motivations are changing, maybe that drives things in a
different way?
[I loved BA when I went there for a LacNIC meeting. I worry about becoming
a standards tourist.]