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

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

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Curtis Villamizar
<[e-mail]>wrote:

>  There are many things for IAOC to consider.  It is worth noting that
> attendance does not seem to be affected by location:  Quebec 1127, Prague
> 1229, Beijing 1207, Maastricht 1192, Anaheim 1248, Hiroshima 1152, Stockholm
> 1124, San Francisco 1186, Minneapolis 962, Dublin 1183, Philadelphia 1174,
> Vancouver 1128, Chicago 1175, Prague 1193, San Diego 1245, Montreal 1257, …
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Due to the country’s restrictive policy regarding filtering the CN meeting
> was problematic, though in the end it was worked out.  I heard from one of
> the volunteers that sets up the venue that the host was uncooperative with
> regard to configuring the network, requiring the staff to discover the
> topology due to failure to communicate as equipment was deployed and having
> to configure unfamiliar equipment with the host providing equipment but
> little or no assistance in the equipment configuration.****
>
> ** **
>
> My understanding is that the IAOC is having trouble getting sponsors for
> some locations in addition to noting that hotel rates are quite high in any
> place in the Far East that they have considered.****
>
> ** **
>
> I prefer to stop second guessing IAOC and let them negotiate with potential
> sponsors and venues.
>

I'm afraid I was not going to challenge IAOC. On the contrary, I'm all for
leaving this tough task to IAOC, appreciating their efforts, and stopping
this thread.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Curtis****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Dae
> Young KIM
> *Sent:* Monday, August 08, 2011 12:49 PM
> *To:* Curtis Villamizar
> *Cc:* Jakob Heitz; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was: are we
> getting complacent? Good job!)****
>
> ** **
>
> 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****
>



-- 
DY