Re: [Mtgvenue] Update of RFC8719 required to conform to IETF mission

[Benson Muite <[e-mail]>]

On 12/28/23 21:48, John R Levine wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, Benson Muite wrote:
>> The primary issue is that the current wording is exclusionary when it
>> need not be so.  A secondary issue is that it is backward rather than
>> forward looking - we cannot make the internet better solely by looking
>> at the past.
> 
> I would find it helpful if you could explain in a few sentences why you
> think the IETF has in-person meetings, rather than only doing work on
> mailing lists and by videoconference.
> 
The IETF has been great at pioneering an open accessible technical
standards process.  This is well reflected in a part of section 4.4 of
RFC3935:
``The Internet is a global phenomenon.  The people interested in its
  evolution are from every culture under the sun and from all walks of
  life.  The IETF puts its emphasis on technical competence, rough
  consensus and individual participation, and needs to be open to
  competent input from any source.''

It is possible to participate entirely remotely in most IETF work.
Asynchronous thoughtful written discussion is often more productive than
an in person heated argument, in particular one without preparation.
Nevertheless, with both video-conferencing and mailing lists, it is
possible to get siloed into the areas one is working on. In person
meetings make it easier to gain the perspective of other IETF
participants on general IETF directions and to learn about new areas
that one should get involved in - this is often effectively accomplished
in the hallway track and other informal conversations.  When involved
parties are willing to listen, an in person discussion can also unstick
and rapidly advance the development of an RFC. These are some of the
reasons hybrid meetings with an in person component resumed after all
virtual meetings despite the venue, travel and accommodation costs.

Understanding how the internet is used in another location is also
helpful in building protocols either to have shared standards or when
not possible, different standards with a minimum level of
interoperability - MIMI is one such example. Another area of concern is
identity and technological requirements to support anonymous and
verified access to various internet services - requirements differ quite
substantially outside traditional IETF meeting locations, and the
internet needs to evolve to support these requirements, commercial use
of the internet requires this. Understanding requirements for streaming
video on the subway at 8:00am local time in Shanghai could improve a
similar experience in New York City. Understanding how to create
protocols that improve connectivity in Turkana could have benefits in
improving connectivity in Siberia or Alaska - the suggestion is not to
have frequent IETF meetings in Lodwar,  Novosibirsk, or Anchorage
respectively, but at least make it more possible for people with such
different experiences and requirements to develop appropriate standards.

The aim of the change is not to replicate ISOC and ICANN in having
policy meetings outside of traditional IETF locations, but to encourage
relevant engineering development work in these regions and not
explicitly block their integration into the broader eco system.

Suggestions for other changes that explicitly enable the inclusion of
the southern hemisphere as possible locations in the IETF meeting
rotation without requiring a special exemption are welcome.
> Regards,
> John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly