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

Kurt Erik Lindqvist <> Tue, 29 July 2008 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 532F528C106; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97D928C106 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:34:03 -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 wgZPoviWj0M4 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:670:87:2::25]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8F63A6B32 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:34:02 -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 CEEC978C2B; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:34:11 +0300 (EEST)
Message-Id: <>
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:34:09 +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 12.01, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 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.

At least as long as I was on the IAOC (during BTW when this proposal  
was evaluated) we every now and then (but not always) have several  
venues to select from and then does a site evaluation and weighs the  
pros and cons. That is then discussed with the localhosts and  
eventually a venue is selected. The IAOC never provides public  
comments or names the venues not selected or the reasons for it. When  
there are multiple choices there will always be venues not selected,  
of the venues that have not been selected the only one that keep  
coming back up here is that you bring up your failed bid for Madrid.  
But what I really wanted to comment on is that the above sounds like  
MAdrid was considered as an alternative to Dublin. AFAIK it never was.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

72attendees mailing list