Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)

"Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <jonne.soininen@nsn.com> Thu, 31 July 2008 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <72attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 72attendees-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-72attendees-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F358B28C260; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: 72attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 72attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCE428C2AE for <72attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.145
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.942, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0SxDrMUjRFiX for <72attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D1A28C21B for <72attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6VIXJVI018972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:33:19 +0200
Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (webmail.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6VIXJjE025527; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:33:19 +0200
Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.32.12]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:33:19 +0200
Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.22]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:33:17 +0200
Received: from 10.162.76.223 ([10.162.76.223]) by FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.28]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.bn.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.32.11]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:33:16 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.11.0.080522
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:33:14 +0300
From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <jonne.soininen@nsn.com>
To: ext JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, <72attendees@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <C4B7E01A.773CF%jonne.soininen@nsn.com>
Thread-Topic: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)
Thread-Index: AcjxYgv4dhq8jbJvdkOl/RCHwLMYfQABCFi4AHFaE1gABBOunw==
In-Reply-To: <C4B7A89E.1CC6B1%jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Mime-version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2008 18:33:17.0554 (UTC) FILETIME=[E67B9D20:01C8F33B]
Cc: dvorshak@isoc.org
Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)
X-BeenThere: 72attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the attendees of IETF 72 meeting." <72attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees>, <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/72attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:72attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees>, <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: 72attendees-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 72attendees-bounces@ietf.org

Jordi,

First of all, I'm a bit sorry you didn't speak up during the IAOC open mike
session earlier today. If there is a feeling, there is something "secret"
about meeting location or hosting opportunities it means that we have failed
in our communication. However, I'm not sure this is a general sentiment. I
might be wrong.

For the IETF 67, which I believe we are talking about, I remember we were
quite a bit in a hurry, and we had to do some of the decision rather
quickly. As there were a range of open issues and some risks with the venue
at the time, the decision was to go to San Diego instead.

The important point was that the decision to go to San Diego was done
together with the IAOC and the host, Siemens. Of course, the ultimate
responsibility is at IAOC. However, we did this decision together with the
host.

I can assure you, there was no general sentiment in the IAOC against Spain,
or Madrid as you seem to think. I can say from my part that it is the
contrary!

What comes to negotiations, I have to say that it is quite important that we
do keep the negotiation under the IASA/IETF control. Perhaps, we could have
used more local knowledge that you might have been able to provide at this
case. It is very important for the IETF that it is represented by itself,
and there is no ambiguity on who represents the IETF and who doesn't.

However, it wasn't the cost alone that made us to go to San Diego, which I
have tried to say the whole time. It was a combination of reasons. One of
the main reasons was the time pressure. We had to end the negotiations at
some point, and that was the point for us. We did that decision together
with the host.

I am sorry you feel offended by the process around organizing IETF#67. This
was not the purpose. The purpose was to have a good, productive meeting. I
think we did that.

Cheers,

Jonne.



On 7/31/08 7:36 PM, "ext JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
wrote:

> Hi Jonne,
> 
> This was not the information I got, at least I don't recall being informed
> at all that the venue was not selected by a Siemens decision, on the other
> way around, I was informed that was not suitable according to the IAOC
> decision.
> 
> One of the issues (as I recall being told) was the availability of
> restaurants. The information that the IAOC got about that was wrong, as I
> discussed with the IAD afterwards (when I was informed of that being one of
> the problems).
> 
> The other one I recall was the venue was too expensive. However I also
> indicated when I knew the offer you got, that I can manage to get a better
> deal, and indeed, I got a better offer (I think it was around 15% cut) the
> morning after you took the decision of not using that venue. I was not
> allowed to contact the venue management before because I was asked by the
> secretariat not to do so, and of course, I respected that decision, but then
> wanted to prove that it was a WRONG negotiation.
> 
> This things happen because the process is so secret, because people that
> know the venue, even has direct contacts with the venue (having organized
> other big events there, having set up IPv6 there, etc.), is not allowed to
> participate in the negotiation with the venue.
> 
> Having the help of local people, with local negotiation skills, and not
> taking it, seems to me really silly and not a good thing for the community.
> This need to change.
> 
> Of course, you will not have always that local people, and you not
> necessarily can trust them, but their inputs and their help in the
> negotiation can't be ignored. Even do, the IAOC still has the final decision
> power, right ? So nothing negative in the process, just a lot of possible
> hands to be used.
> 
> Last but not least, I even offered to be the *HOST*. I actually did since I
> had the idea to bring IETF to Madrid in summer 2001 when I talked for the
> first time about that during the London meeting with the secretariat.
> 
> So, now tell me, why this or that host has higher priority to host a meeting
> ? It should be more a planning question, and if the plan was to have that
> meeting in Europe, the host offering Europe should take precedence,
> specially having offered it since so long time.
> 
> Now, I'm not really interested and even discouraged to try to host again in
> Madrid, but if Drew drop me a message and I get a firm commitment that I'm
> not going to waste my time in getting a similar or even better situation
> (considering funding from the government/others, cost of the venue, etc.) as
> when I did the previous time, then and only then, I will reconsider my
> position. I'm happy to spend as many of my cycles as required, but
> definitively will not waste them in a useless way.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <jonne.soininen@nsn.com>
>> Reply-To: <jonne.soininen@nsn.com>
>> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:30:53 +0300
>> To: Jordi Palet Martínez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>es>, <72attendees@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re:
>> Guestroom
>> Network not under NOC Control)
>> 
>> Jordi,
>> 
>> Your recollection of the past is a little bit different that mine. I
>> remember the last time you tried there were open ends in many things until
>> very late of the process. This and other reasons made the main host to
>> decide on a different venue (San Diego). Siemens was the host for that
>> possible meeting. The people who were mostly involved from Siemens are now
>> part of Nokia Siemens Network, who I happen to work for as well. The main
>> thing is that host was very much involved on the change of the meeting
>> location! If you want to talk about specifics of that time, I'm happy to
>> talk to you off-line.
>> 
>> It seems that the next scheduled European meeting without a host is at
>> Summer 2010. If you have a host, or funding to host, please, contact Drew
>> Dvorshak at dvorshak@isoc.org or the IAD. If you even have a location in
>> mind, better it is!
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Jonne.
>> 
>> On 7/29/08 1:01 PM, "ext JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> And when you find volunteer hosts which find the money, the venue and so on,
>>> such as myself in Madrid, trying for several years, then you disqualify the
>>> venue because is not in down-town ... A very fair comparison with this one
>>> or even San Diego.
>>> 
>>> Madrid venue was much better (even being the first hotel in the world that
>>> offered IPv6 in the guest rooms several years ago, no filtered
>>> ports/protocols at all !), much better located, much cheaper, better
>>> commuting to downtown (cheaper and shorter), better food, more restaurant
>>> choices in the venue and around, etc.
>>> 
>>> So the first that make the possible hosts and sponsors to step down is the
>>> organization itself with ridiculous decisions which are then taken as
>>> irrelevant for other venues (and Dublin is a very good example).
>>> 
>>> Now I'm not sure wanting to spend anymore my cycles in retrying this again
>>> unless there is a firm commitment. I bothered the government to much to
>>> raise +150.000 Euros for sponsoring this and I'm not even sure they will
>>> consider it again.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Jordi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
>>>> Reply-To: <72attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
>>>> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:18:31 +0200
>>>> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
>>>> Cc: <72attendees@ietf.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re:
>>>> Guestroom
>>>> Network not under NOC Control)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 29 jul 2008, at 10.41, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 29 jul 2008, at 0:07, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "the powers that be" are trying to optimize location /
>>>>>> internationalization / the host that PAYs preferences to location
>>>>> 
>>>>> The interesting thing is that the attendees ALSO pay for this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now I understand that the IETF needs to get its funding where it can
>>>>> find it, but it can hardly be a surprise that if you make two sets
>>>>> of people pay for the same thing and optimize for the convenience of
>>>>> one party, the other is unhappy.
>>>> 
>>>> If you would have quoted a bit more of my email -  I actually further
>>>> said 'This equation is far from easy, '. The problem is that - as has
>>>> been discussed at length at IETFs for a long time - the attendance
>>>> fees, the host sponsorship and the contributions from ISOC, all pays
>>>> for the meetings AND the secretariat. At trust me from the years on
>>>> the IAOC - running the IETF is not a money making business. If we
>>>> can't find hosts, the attendance fees would have to go up
>>>> significantly. Add to that the the ROI in marketing for a hosts on
>>>> sponsoring an IETF in the first place is miniscule. Add to it the all
>>>> the negative comments from the IETFXX-lists and have that attached to
>>>> your brand and the marketing value is negative.
>>>> 
>>>> Personally I believe that we simply don't give the hosts (and the NOC
>>>> volunteers) enough credit for stepping up to the task of organizing a
>>>> meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> - kurtis -
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> PS, as most people have seems to have missed or ignored Andrews mail -
>>>> issues with the hotel network should go to the hotel, not the IETF list.
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 72attendees mailing list
>>>> 72attendees@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> **********************************************
>>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>>> 
>>> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
>>> http://www.ipv6day.org
>>> 
>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
>>> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
>>> that
>>> any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>>> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 72attendees mailing list
>>> 72attendees@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jonne Soininen
>> Nokia Siemens Networks
>> 
>> Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
>> E-mail: jonne.soininen@nsn.com
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> 
> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> http://www.ipv6day.org
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
> any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 72attendees mailing list
> 72attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: jonne.soininen@nsn.com


_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
72attendees@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees