Re: IETF 62
"Ben Crosby" <ben.crosby@alcatel.com> Mon, 20 September 2004 00:49 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26136; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:49:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9CTE-0007cU-59; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:55:56 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9CKu-0006FU-TK; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:47:20 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9CKi-000695-59 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:47:08 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA25978 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:47:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from auds951.usa.alcatel.com ([143.209.238.80]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9CQl-0007Zi-Ec for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:53:23 -0400
Received: from usdals324.consilient2.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by auds951.usa.alcatel.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8K0kZ2Q015927 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:46:36 -0500 (CDT)
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6556.0
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:46:36 -0500
Message-ID: <19C06709BE3DD54FAC8ADFBBF31C7FF7176654@usdals324.usa.alcatel.com>
Thread-Topic: IETF 62
Thread-Index: AcSeqVvdvwLoF4LCSUqisQYQ6udjBwAAexu2
From: Ben Crosby <ben.crosby@alcatel.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: IETF 62
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hear hear! I debated posting after the fingerprint thread, and then again after the Cancun comment. Sam's email accurately sums up my own view. Further, as the host of IETF61, we explored at least four possible venues, one of which was Ottawa - too bloody awkward to get to, since there are very few direct flights, and even fewer venues big enough to support the meeting - and another was Florida, a WDW Conference hotel. This venue was ultimately rejected for a few reasons, one of which was the implications of "work, not play". DC was ultimately selected as a good "business" town, and I hope it will be a succesful meeting. Ta, Ben. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> To: ietf@ietf.org <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Sun Sep 19 19:28:06 2004 Subject: Re: IETF 62 Two things brought up in this thread disturb me. First, there seems to be the idea that we should be choosing where IETFs are held for political purposes--to make statements for or against certain governments. I'm not quite sure this was said or implied, but if it was, I'm made a bit uncomfortable by it. I certainly understand we should carefully consider situations that make people unable or unwilling to attend an IETF. Maximizing the number of active (and potentially active) participants who can make it to a meeting is a valid thing to consider. If the political policies of a country make it hard to get the people we need in that country then we should go there less frequently or not at all. Note that one way these policies can make it hard for us to get the people we need in a particular country is for these people to be unwilling to travel to that country. However in similar situations (not all of them within the IETF context) I've seen the desire to avoid a particular country go beyond what is justified by a desire to make the conference accessible. In some cases it seemed to venture into the realm of political statement. The conference seemed to want to say that they were taking a stand against the policies of a country. That is dangerous: getting involved in politics may compromise our ability to construct the best Internet we can. There may be some cases where we must get involved in politics; I'm skeptical that any involve conference venue selection. Even worse, it sometimes seems like the desire is to go beyond a statement and actually punish countries by not going that. That's just stupid; we end up punishing our own attendees from those countries, not the countries themselves. Again, I'm not sure I see this problem in this thread. It's not entirely clear what peoples' motivations are. I know that I feel more comfortable with the outcomes of discussions based on fair distribution of travel and convenience of participants than I do with the outcomes of discussions based on fingerprinting, rules and who is involved in a particular country's decision making process. This is true even when the discussions produce identical results; the process matters. 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. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: IETF 62 Ben Crosby
- Re: IETF 62 Greg Daley
- Re: IETF 62 Martin Stiemerling
- Re: IETF 62 Ben Crosby
- Re: IETF 62 jamal
- Re: IETF 62 Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 62 shogunx
- Re: IETF 62 jamal
- Re: IETF 62 Ben Crosby
- Re: IETF 62 Tim Chown
- Re: IETF 62 Ben Crosby
- Re: IETF 62 jamal
- Re: IETF 62 Ben Crosby
- Re: IETF 62 Michael Richardson