RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)

["Steve Crocker" <[e-mail]>]

Agreed.  External Internet connectivity, internal Internet access and a
terminal room are all included in the envelope.

Steve



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 3:53 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
> 
> 
> Umm, not so fast....
> 
> When we hosted the London meeting, we were told which venue 
> was to be used.  It turned out that we had to install extra 
> network capacity to the hotel, especially for the meeting, 
> because the hotel didn't have what was required. ( So the 
> hotel did pretty well out of it. )
> 
> There's more to arranging an IETF venue than securing the 
> right number of meeting rooms.  We need to get the functional 
> requirements for these things specified properly.
> 
> 	Regards,
> 
> 	Graham Travers
> 
> 	International Standards Manager
> 	BT Group
> 
> 	e-mail:   [e-mail]
> 	tel:      [phone]
> 	mobile:   [phone]
>       HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK
> 
> BT Group plc
> Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
> Registered in England and Wales no. 4190816 This electronic 
> message contains information from BT Group plc which may be 
> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be 
> for the use of the
> individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the 
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
> distribution or use of the contents of this information is 
> prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in 
> error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers 
> or address above) immediately. Activity and use of the BT 
> Group plc E-mail system is monitored to secure its effective 
> operation and for other lawful business purposes. 
> Communications using this system will also be monitored and 
> may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other 
> lawful business purposes. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: 12 September 2004 19:41
> To: Steve Crocker; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
> 
> 
> Exactly, I agree with Steve here.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Crocker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 18:51
> > To: 'Margaret Wasserman'; 'scott bradner'; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
> > 
> > 
> > A brief comment on one specific aspect of meeting planning...
> > 
> > In broad terms, the planning for a meeting is partionable, rather
> > cleanly, into two pieces.  One is the "envelope" of 
> arranging for the 
> > hotel, an inventory of large and small meeting rooms, the terminal 
> > room, the external network connectivity, the food and perhaps a few 
> > other things I've left out.  This "envelope" is reasonably constant 
> > and reasonably easy to specify.
> > 
> > The other part of meeting planning is the assignment of 
> WGs, BOFs and
> > other events to the specific rooms.  This requires intimate 
> knowledge 
> > of the areas and other relationships to avoid scheduling conflicts, 
> > work out priorities and maintain communication with all the
> > relevant people.
> > 
> > I believe the former could be farmed out, if desired, although this 
> > gets a bit complicated because it includes finding sponsors 
> and making
> > arrangements for appropriate Internet service.  The latter is 
> > tied quite
> > closely, in my opinion, to the year round support of the 
> WGs and IESG.
> > 
> > I don't have an opinion as to whether the envelope part of 
> the meeting
> 
> > planning *should* be farmed out to a separate organization. 
>  I'm only
> > commenting here that the tasks divide reasonably cleanly.  
> That is, to
> 
> > first order, an IETF meeting needs a plenary room, about ten working
> > group rooms, a terminal room, and a handful of side rooms for 
> > auxiliary purposes.  That's a spec that can be sent out to 
> hotels and 
> > meeting planners around the world.
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> > > Of Margaret Wasserman
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 12:00 PM
> > > To: scott bradner; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Scott,
> > > 
> > > At 5:06 PM -0400 9/11/04, scott bradner wrote:
> > > >imo it would least disruptive to follow option #3 (combo
> > > path) and try
> > > >to negotiate a sole source contract with Foretec/CNRI for
> > what Carl
> > > >called the clerk function and maybe some other functions
> > > (imo it would
> > > >be better to outsorce the management of the mailing lists
> > and their
> > > >archives to a company in that business)
> > > 
> > > Mailing list management and web hosting (not content) are
> > two obvious
> > > candidates for separate contracts if we choose to go with a 
> > > multi-part RFP process.  These items are quite independent and 
> > > non-IETF specific.
> > > 
> > > Meeting planning is another chunk that could be considered 
> > > separately, but the way we do it today has a lot of 
> tie-ins to IETF 
> > > activities -- rules/notices about WG vs. BOF scheduling,
> > proceedings,
> > > network, terminal rooms, multicast, sponsorship, etc.  So, if we 
> > > outsource the meeting planning separately from the "clerk"
> > function,
> > > we would have to carefully define the line between the two,
> >  and that
> > > line may not be quite where it lies inside Foretec today.
> > > 
> > > Also, even if we somehow outsource a few of the more 
> > > separable/generic tasks independently, there is still a
> > large amount
> > > of IETF-specific work that needs to be done by someone -- I-D 
> > > handling, supporting the IESG review/approval process, 
> handling IPR 
> > > notices, keeping track of WG charters, maintaining our 
> web content, 
> > > etc.  It would not be easy to outsource these functions 
> to multiple 
> > > groups.  It would require extensive effort to define the 
> interfaces 
> > > between the different functions, and a lot of duplicate
> > work to train
> > > multiple groups in the details of the IETF processes and culture.
> > > 
> > > I have some concerns that if we try to break off a few of
> > the simpler
> > > chunks, the effort of coordinating between those chunks may
> > be larger
> > > than the benefits that would accrue from allowing
> > competition in the
> > > mailing list management, web hosting and meeting planning
> > areas.  So,
> > > this is something we should think about carefully.  A
> > multi-part RFP
> > > process that allows organizations to submit multi-part bids
> > (i.e.  if
> > > we run the clerk's office,  we will also do meeting
> > planning for $XXX
> > > ) might give us some insight into whether ecomomies of
> > scale make it
> > > cheaper to go with a single provider for all services, or if it 
> > > actually works out that it is cheaper/better for some
> > functions to be
> > > provided by people who specialize in them.
> > > 
> > > Margaret
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ietf mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf