Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

 Regarding participation, I am not sure if we can claim low
participation for Singapore similar to Buenos Aires.

I think that the hotel reservation hiccup, i.e. reserving only 200
rooms at the venue contributed a lot to it in BsAs. We have seen an
avalanche of mails after the hotel announcement. The same think did
not happen for Berlin. My interpretation is that IETF did reserve
enough rooms at the venue.

I am hoping the same will happen in future venues and we are not going
to experience a drop in attendance just because of that.

Behcet

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Yoav Nir <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Jun 2016, at 7:00 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Yoav Nir <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> I doubt they will be able or willing to help much. “Your country is evil and discriminatory. What do you have to say about this?”  Besides, we’d be talking to the executive branch, while change tends to come from either the legislative or judicial. I also don’t believe it’s the job of the IETF to give “red face” to officials of host countries. Making a habit of this will make us about as welcome as the globalization protesters were 15 years ago.
>>>
>>> Deciding not to meet somewhere is one thing. Extending the agenda of meetings from just technical work to technical work plus political protest is not a good idea.
>>>
>>
>> +1 to both of the above points
>>
>>> The good outcome coming out of this is the decision to crowd-source the vetting of possible destinations such as [1]. A message such as this about Singapore would have prevented quite a bit of “red face” for the IAOC.
>>>
>>
>> I am not sure about this. I thought IOAC said it is difficult/costly
>> to change Singapore venue at this moment.
>>
>
> Sorry. I meant, “A message such as this about Singapore **a year ago** would have prevented quite a bit..”
>
> Somehow I forgot to type those three words.
>
> Yoav
>