Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was: are we getting complacent? Good job!)

[Dae Young KIM <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Curtis,

I've been attending many, of course not all, IETF meeting since mid 90s, so
I do know the history you've described.

You said:

   "We really could consider where the majority of participants come from,
which is not from Far East Asia, but we want IETF to be accessible to
regions with a significant number of participants."

A good point, for minimization of the total cost/pain.

But, you went to far when you picked Africa as an example, although I start
recognizing more about South American activities.

Take Far East Asia, more specifically. If you don't disagree too far, China,
and India are growing both in terms of markets and technical contributions.
(I'd reserve Japan, for it has already been far ahead.) And Corea is
struggling to catch up with opportunities in the Internet, although it has
had partial success in different business sectors.

Talking about the number of participants, if the meeting would be held
nearer to these countries, for example(just for an example for developing my
logic, if there's any logic), their participants would be much higher than
otherwise.

I'm not sure if some people remember that for several years and meetings,
Corea would rank within five top countries as IETF participants, and that
mostly in NA and sometimes EU countries. (There haven only two JP meetings,
one CN, and one KR meeting out of so many IETF meetings, you know).
Sometimes, nearly 100 from Corea alone, from so small a country.

Now, it's China sending almost 150 people to every meeting, if I'm not
wrong.

If the enthusiasm is such high from this region, their participation would
grow much higher if they'd be given chance to host meetings near their
region.

OK, the number is not all, you have to do technical contribution. This again
would grow if there are exposed to more opportunities.

I mean.. the dominance of participation partly is affected by the continents
where venues are placed.

It's not fair to say, after having dominantly more meetings in NA or EU,
that there's little reason to go to FEA because they're a smaller portion.
On the contrary, perhaps, the enthusiasm is higher in this region.

Here comes the word of consideration for geographical diversity. Or to be
more exact. chasing after the center of gravity of enthusiasm or potential
market grow or even technical contribution.

If one would say, we're larger, so we'll stick here around.... then, we're
not maximizing our potential product.

Well, by now, I'm losing my emotion to continue my non-logic.

Since when has the human history been of such mutual respect and
consideration? It's almost futile to talk about this non-secular argument.

So, be it. Sufferers would suffer, goers would go. No problem.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Curtis Villamizar
<[e-mail]>wrote:

>  This thread wasn’t really about meeting location so I changed the
> subject.****
>
> ** **
>
> Just FYI - I’ve attended IETF on and off since 1992.  Attendance then had
> just broken 200.****
>
> ** **
>
> \begin{aside}  % xml notation can confuse software so using latex notation
> (only confuses readers)****
>
> ** **
>
> Up until the early 1990s most of the Internet infrastructure was funded by
> the US NSF (National Science Foundation), including much of the (small
> amount of) research and education networking in Europe and the Far East
> Asia.  Not surprising that meetings at that time were in NA, mostly US.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> Meetings began to be held in Europe as well as North America in the early
> 1990s when there was significant activity in Europe that was funded by
> Europeans, a strong growth in European participation in IETF, and willing
> sponsors.****
>
> ** **
>
> The Internet originated in NA, then Europe, but is now very much a global
> thing and we are now having IETF meetings all over the world.  We really
> could consider where the majority of participants come from, which is not
> from Far East Asia, but we want IETF to be accessible to regions with a
> significant number of participants.****
>
> ** **
>
> \end{aside}****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m not arguing that we should not hold meetings in diverse locations, but
> with your logic we should hold regular IETF meetings in Africa since they
> are more underprivileged than any other part of the world that we could
> expect participation from.  So far that has not happened probably because we
> would expect very few local participants and we may not be able to find a
> sponsor.****
>
> ** **
>
> There have been suggestions that we meet in South America and Africa, but
> AFAIK no sponsors.  Travel logistics would likely be even more challenging,
> but as long as the destination had a sponsor, was reasonably accessible, and
> was safe to travel to, I’m sure IAOC would strongly consider it.****
>
> ** **
>
> I don’t think IAOC has been unfair in its site selection.  There are many
> factors for them to consider.****
>
> ** **
>
> Curtis
>

-- 
DY