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

Kurt Erik Lindqvist <> Tue, 29 July 2008 09:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A6F028C218; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFBB28C218 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Es2xtyxHd1dx for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:670:87:2::25]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D75528C1FD for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::16:21d:4fff:fefc:b8f3] (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:21d:4fff:fefc:b8f3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD03E78C2B; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:18:32 +0300 (EEST)
Message-Id: <>
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:18:31 +0200
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the attendees of IETF 72 meeting." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"

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  

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