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

"Livingood, Jason" <> Tue, 29 July 2008 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD7C28C2DA; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A5E28C2DB for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.404
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.867, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Pa293NGDfw1 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCBA28C2D8 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id KP-NTF18.58315461; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:29:45 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:29:46 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:29:19 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re:Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)
Thread-Index: AcjxXCUjB9h3OFbDR7u+cyUdA615CAAIbue8
References: <><><><> <>
From: "Livingood, Jason" <>
To: "Kurt Erik Lindqvist" <>, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2008 13:29:46.0552 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B0DBB80:01C8F17F]
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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

As the host organizer for IETF 71, I can say from very recent experience that most people would be shocked by how many volunteers, how many hours of volunteer time, and, not least, how much money it takes to sponsor and to operate an IETF meeting - to say nothing of supporting organizations such as AMS.  There is so much behind the scenes that people have no idea about, and there is months of advance preparation.  It is an exceptionally large commitment of human resources and financial resources by a host like Alcatel-Lucent, and demonstrates a host's commitment to the IETF and what we all do here in a major way.
So kudos to Alcatel-Lucent and any other future hosts of IETF meetings.  While it's perfectly normal to expect a certain level of service and so on, and fix broken things, sometimes keeping things in perspective is a good thing as well.  


From: on behalf of Kurt Erik Lindqvist
Sent: Tue 7/29/2008 5:18 AM
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
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 

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 mailing list