Re: [106attendees] Power strips ?

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> In article <CALaySJLQn=[e-mail]> you write:
> >As I noted, ICANN does it, and it works.  We could find out from them
> >what sorts of costs and approvals are involved, but they don't seem to
> >have problems with their not being allowed.
>
> ICANN apparently sends so much stuff to their meetings that it fills
> several shipping containers.  We learned this several meetings ago
> when one of the containers got lost.

And by "lost" you mean "caught on fire!!!!" (actually, this wasn't the
ICANN container which caught alight, but it was affected by nearby
fire -- more info here:
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/fire-on-cargo-ship-affects-it-equipment-bound-for-icann57-hyderabad
). It's easy to forget that a: networks rely on physical thingies, and
b: logistics are hard and c: planning for all eventualities is also
hard!

If the same thing happened to the IETF network gear, we would be
scrambling to deal -- ICANN could "simply" buy their way out of the
issue, but the vast majority of IETF gear is donated, we don't have
N+1 of everything, nor an easy way to put down a credit-card and say
"another pile of your finest routers / switches / servers / wireless
please, good sir..."

W

>  A quick look at the ICANN budget
> suggests that even though they are roughly the same size as our meetings,
> typically 1000 people, they cost twice as much.  (This is the cost.  Their
> meeting revenue is deliberately zero so it's not comparable.)
>
> I'm pretty sure this is not a direction that the IETF would like to go.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> --
> 106attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/106attendees



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf