RE: Meeting locations (was IETF 62)

"Robin Uyeshiro" <> Mon, 20 September 2004 21:28 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23165; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:28:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9VoE-0002Ta-9w; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:34:55 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9VLb-0002hy-FU; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:05:19 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9UI0-0004sd-SW for; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:57:32 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06511 for <>; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:57:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9UOE-0005sA-8u for; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:03:59 -0400
Received: from XeonAL (xeonal []) by (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8KJvOU11022; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:57:24 -1000 (HST)
From: Robin Uyeshiro <>
To: 'John C Klensin' <>, 'Lars Eggert' <>, 'Sam Hartman' <>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:57:21 -1000
Message-ID: <002701c49f4c$0ab7e010$c1a3ab80@XeonAL>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
In-Reply-To: <>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: RE: Meeting locations (was IETF 62)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 34d35111647d654d033d58d318c0d21a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Would the IEEE 802 Plenaries have comparable geographical/logistical
requirements to IETF meetings?  Their next few plenaries are scheduled
in San Antonio, Atlanta, San Francisco, Vancouver, New Orleans, San
Diego, and Dallas.  All but one are in the US, and all are in North

I attended one plenary at Hilton Head, and talked to people about
another held on Maui, both resort areas.  This was before the crash,
though, so perhaps money is tighter now.

I'm not advocating doing the same thing; just thought another data point
might be helpful.

-- Robin Uyeshiro
P.S. Honolulu has a new convention center.  

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of
John C Klensin
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 12:59 AM
To: Lars Eggert; Sam Hartman
Subject: Re: IETF 62

--On Monday, 20 September, 2004 08:54 +0200 Lars Eggert
<> wrote:

>> Secondly, I'm concerned that people are proposing optimizing
>> for pleasant climate and good vacation spots.  I come to the
>> IETF to get work done; I'd rather be at meetings where the
>> other participants have the same goal.  We should be somewhat
>> careful of optimizing for enjoyable location.  I'd rather see
>> us optimize for who can attend and cost.
> If you have data that shows an inverse proportionality between
> the enjoyability of past locations and the generated IETF
> output, please post it.


I have no idea about actual IETF experience, but, based on
experience with other organizations and meetings of similar
technical focus, the key issue is not whether those who go can
get work done, or even whether some people decide to go it if is
a nice place.  Rather, it is the tendency of people who have to
review and approve travel to look at a destination, pronounce
the words "probable boggle" and then say "no".    And I've seen
enough situations in which that has occurred to make that a real

It probably isn't enough of a concern to say "we absolutely
should, or should not, meet there", but it should be a
significant consideration.

On other observation on the US situation.  In the few years, we
have had a significant problem with participants from some
countries getting to US meetings at all due to increasing
scrutiny of visa applications and consequent difficulties in
getting visas.  Sometimes, those delays have been equivalent to
visa denial, even when no formal denial occurs.  Those
restrictions are qualitatively different from, e.g., the
fingerprint issue, since they prevent someone from even making
the decision as to whether they are willing to put up with the
marginal aggravation and intrusion to attend.  Classes of IETF
participants are excluded entirely depending on their
nationality or normal residency, and that has a direct on IETF
openness and global participation.

That is, fwiw, I've been suggesting that we reduce the focus on
meetings in the US for a few years now.  As others have pointed
out, doing that isn't quite as easy as would appear to be the
case at first glance but, IMO, we should keep trying.


Ietf mailing list

Ietf mailing list