Re: IETF 62

Greg Daley <> Mon, 20 September 2004 03:17 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04601; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:17:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9Emm-0001uN-Lu; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:24:16 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9EeE-0006rO-95; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:15:26 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9Edd-0006lI-PB for; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:14:50 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04417 for <>; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:14:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9Ejh-0001rF-Dr for; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:21:06 -0400
Received: from localhost ([]) by (PMDF V5.2-31 #39306) with ESMTP id <> for; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:12:19 +1000
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0990BAB546; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:12:18 +1000 (EST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E37B94FB03; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:12:17 +1000 (EST)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:12:17 +1000
From: Greg Daley <>
In-reply-to: <>
To: Ben Crosby <>
Message-id: <>
Organization: Monash University
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803
X-Accept-Language: en, en-us
References: <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: 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: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Ben and Sam,

Ben Crosby wrote:
> 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 
 > 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.

It's worth realizing that fingerprinting is a current issue
(and likely a future one) which makes people uncomfortable
and may discourage people from making their first (or next)
visit to IETF, if it's in the 'States.

Considering the high level RIPE/APNIC activity with IPv6, it's
certainly worth minimizing some of the barriers to new participants
in coming to IETF.

Personally, I believe that if I enter a country as its guest, I subject
myself to their rules and security tests.  It doesn't mean I have to
like being fingerprinted though.

I know people for whom this dislike is a serious disincentive to attend.
If we continue to have the high proportion of events scheduled (by
default) in the USA, we may see the variety of international attendees

When there have been so few (2 I think) IETFs in Canada it seems a shame
to default to North America == USA and just ignore major cities such as 
Montreal or Toronto, because they're an hour or so further to fly.
As far as I can see, Minneapolis isn't a direct destination for all the
major airlines either.

Like it or not IETF isn't a political organization, but a politically
important one.  If we're choosing locations, sometimes the reason has to 
be political (I'm not talking about going to Canada here).
Seoul IETF apparently made good business sense. It made even better
political sense, since it encouraged government and business figures in
Korea to support IPv6.

If we're prepared to ignore political issues then we may miss such
opportunities for positive outcomes for IETF.

My current opinion only,

Greg Daley

Ietf mailing list