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

Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com> Wed, 30 July 2008 15:46 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 4ED353A6C29; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:46:39 -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 9B90228C11E for <72attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 pPm5eyh9Ga3Q for <72attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4453A6BFD for <72attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.31,279,1215388800"; d="scan'208";a="70521473"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2008 15:46:36 +0000
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6UFkXih009961; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:46:33 -0700
Received: from pita.cisco.com (pita.cisco.com [171.71.177.199]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6UFkXYW026922; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:46:33 GMT
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
In-Reply-To: <48907F57.5090308@bbiw.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0807300831250.10468@pita.cisco.com>
References: <C4B41B20.76FCE%jonne.soininen@nsn.com> <94A3C924-DB32-43B1-B9F5-66C54EA32926@muada.com> <1217326884.3851.12.camel@victoria.pingtel.com> <488F4098.1040106@dcrocker.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0807290926120.17270@pita.cisco.com> <48905D65.303@dcrocker.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0807300613090.17168@pita.cisco.com> <48907F57.5090308@bbiw.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1893; t=1217432793; x=1218296793; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ole@cisco.com; z=From:=20Ole=20Jacobsen=20<ole@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[72attendees]=20Clarifying=20Host=20Res ponsibilities=20(was=20Re=3A=20Guestroom=0A=20Network=20not= 20under=20NOC=20Control) |Sender:=20; bh=1OALznJgVhLAtOO6sc9vF5A4lxrcvc+qDC3Cx9egoxw=; b=a1GPPw9/iP3MXF6UvasMXx3IfU1a4ErngpZdM9dfzriNlvoTi0IqHA4Bme A9qgDLx3beHnzyY8MAn4i17Z96kZOEOF51YHMs+vm/JaSHmdVT62VJ8NpagW +xARuIWuNj;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=ole@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Cc: 72attendees@ietf.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
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: 72attendees-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 72attendees-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Ole,
> 
>   This script that you and I are following has become a cliche.  To break out
> of it and conduct serious discussion, we need to think harder about underlying
> assumptions, as well as treating asserted data with some skepticism.
> 
> 
> Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> > De-coupling the two issues is a fine idea on paper and in my experience
> > almost unworkable in practice. Hosts DO want some
> > say in where we meet and they DO want to be near a place where
> > they can provide "local" support (if only from a remote office).
> 
> 
> 1. You are quite wrong.  Most conferences, association meetings, and 
>    the like, choose a venue independent of sponsorship.  Hence 
>    sponsorship is about sponsoring, not about doing the grunt work.  
>    Long ago, we developed a meeting model based on some coupling of 
>    roles and services, which are so entrenched any attempt to 
>    suggest changing it gets responses that are firm, reflexive and 
>    not supported by the facts.  Responding rigidly and defensively 
>    is not a good way to pursue necessary changes.  It is a good way 
>    to ensure that persistent problems persist.

Actually, it is you that is wrong. We HAVE a model which DOES allow a 
so-called turn-key solution where the sponsor(s) have no other role 
than paying the bills and do not have any say in the selection of 
venue. The FACT is that VERY few sponsors opt for this model, 
preferring instead the other model.

We could of course completely OUTLAW this option, and insist on only
offering the turnkey solution. THAT is a discussion worth having, as
is the idea of a fund with enough money in it to fund the IETF 
forever, i.e., ask for a reasonably large chunk of cash from a number
of sources ONCE to get the fund going.

Ole (speaking for myself and not the IAOC).
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
72attendees@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees