Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Yoav Nir <> Mon, 30 May 2016 06:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE3312D11B; Sun, 29 May 2016 23:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZIO-3UvCxJPE; Sun, 29 May 2016 23:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3326812B044; Sun, 29 May 2016 23:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a136so70237388wme.0; Sun, 29 May 2016 23:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FEzn0wSZ3uIJiP4YRYHrUPSjHlWZaU5ry4yZMeMDkxs=; b=xY2CZNOUbYCPXoTtbJrqyf8Z6J1m74AK3ahDSheD/81eCgotQjX4WzVnLH53BBaMdu B7vTty/2a+cO+kw+KmTZBjMrfC1WqatuGOqYa7+ytlYP2DIpSl3pQCXLcaQ+ujQBVkiR ST1/YiKawT872CQ9avdU6f6jX1dDKD/dDM0UzdlArbKHmmryWK0rzLbl/a2raB5pWOP2 0CoDOwf9ywezHidlDEkE1kUCFywYX/nybfmnMToSFOgmMKiiNolRQbiDEbQqjC0zdORI KDocn1CgiZRfU52xB1QxGQgiRCoyOsSL9myhUUeSPOte5upg22wj4N5CIFIjdOfPNQLO atBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FEzn0wSZ3uIJiP4YRYHrUPSjHlWZaU5ry4yZMeMDkxs=; b=JespV/znwRGCJNDK9Mdhv/+2OJATI2srcVp7h/AxV6OqXv8e3zoMfk+XJq+BmQN1gW fkPruv4ygIB0vZ8JR79aila3csY1Z90wheFWl8ltRMjYpC06kLz308fdjKu6/i0L/zCj qASD3eqG2XBu2M6a2jfnBGHDMxmK7K2jQxwgwFy4dA8t5m8onFJpBqwskU9HXaFAR6H8 CWANJnuieNZusYgmeGQde85XBC7PHrhCEiJ2qr6Co/wP5y+NCLyOkF2z0mj/powml3pC NzsVRf9B+hvE2QwJt+X33OU3Euff6iZGWZzN8JxQEzLrqKwWCcHoxSfKBtITpZh3nekq mgSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJKQyuN4Re9Feqf+7z0OHE3GwZA4QStdmNejMtLDcVnJV6Vcz4eDJfFMjoUP0v7hg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id q76mr8743400wmg.83.1464588797552; Sun, 29 May 2016 23:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id k62sm21939819wmb.7.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 29 May 2016 23:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: Yoav Nir <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 09:13:14 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> < om> <> <> <> <>
To: John C Klensin <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 06:13:21 -0000

On 30 May 2016, at 2:31 AM, John C Klensin <> wrote:

> --On Saturday, May 28, 2016 2:34 PM -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
> <> wrote:
>> Fernando,
>>     Your response assumes that it is proven that moving to
>> less-participating locations increases long term participation
>> from those locales.  There are also indications from other
>> data that it is not particularly effective.  Thus, while your
>> view is a reasonable hypothesis, it will take time and
>> measurements to confirm it.
> Let me take Joel's observation about the particular BA
> experiment a bit further.  If, independent of who showed up at
> that meeting, it isn't followed by a significant spike in
> long-term IETF participation and contributions from the region,
> I think people who say "go there in spite of the fact that there
> hasn't been a lot of participation from the region because
> participation will increase" are going to have a very hard time
> making that case... for either a return to Latin America or for
> any other region.

We have run this experiment before. The IETF met in Korea in 2004. I’ve just counted, and in IETF 93, 94, and 95 there were 32, 41, and 17 participants from Korea respectively. Whether this can be attributed to our meeting or to the ascendance of the Korean high-tech industry or to the greater involvement of Korean universities is debatable, and I have no idea how we can ever determine this. It does show the effect of geographic distance and cost. Going from Korea to Prague is difficult enough. Going to Buenos Aires halved the participation compared to Prague.

>>     I do note that many of our regular participants found BA
>> to be simply too much (by whatever measures they use) and
>> chose not to come. That is an observed cost that also must be
>> factored in.
> That drop in attendance, and overall lower attendance, are
> significant for other reasons, but, at least to me, further
> raise  the bar for "going to this new place will help the IETF"
> arguments.

It seems that in general the European meetings have the highest attendance, mostly because obtaining a visa is more straightforward for people from India and Africa compared to obtaining a visa for the US. US meetings are a close second. Other regions have relatively poor attendance, although Yokohama was surprisingly well-attended.

>>     Also note that we did chose to conduct the experiment.
>> So I think your comparison is quite a ways off the mark.
> Indeed.

I think we’ll need to wait for at least two years before we can declare this experiment a success or a failure.