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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Tue, 29 July 2008 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACF128C117; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534413A69F9 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.366
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id glmUOR-5bDUb for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887F93A6991 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp;; s=MDaemon; t=1217329232; x=1217934032;; q=dns; h=DomainKey-Signature:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To: Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:Mime-version: Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; b=WCs0MeMTgTIdVu JZA3Zb6A9uxF3nzaXdfQtGN6ztD08DgmWxf4b+wNLyJgyalBf5RTgA2JV0cV/8ET IiTieqAaqU6rSEyT4hZRyx1prz09VYPze4pz9ht96clXWJE6RENvhjlC6Ni995j0 LlUJ0Q1RkMEIPYP48ohUVqXaRT5YY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon;; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=XYuEwPULrQ7HVOveu47amwsOdoo+IN2JyNaNOn9f7auzGoVB6mEf+iLgNSXqcB/RPdQMu/7SdUwGO136GK4sWKsTDKClrUgFF2GId4f49NFdVMIpYhAy63QvJDTHy6fMln02OwaCu1xmC/tH4znolxYZBtPtRw7odmK6+Uw6KBI=;
Received: from [] by (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.5.R) with ESMTP id md50002986747.msg for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:00:30 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:01:19 +0100
To: <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)
Thread-Index: AcjxYgv4dhq8jbJvdkOl/RCHwLMYfQ==
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
X-Spam-Processed:, Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:00:32 +0200
X-MDAV-Processed:, Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:00:32 +0200
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

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.


> From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:18:31 +0200
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <>
> Cc: <>
> 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

The IPv6 Portal:

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !

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