Subject: [72attendees] Guestroom Network not under NOC Control

From: "LANGE Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:10:02 -0500

We would like to reiterate that the guestroom network is not under NOC control.  The hotel should be the primary point-of-contact for in-room issues.  It should be understood that the hotel's resources are limited.  They are doing the best that they can for our rather demanding crowd.  Their network simply hasn't been beaten on like this before.  Please bear with them.

We are providing both a wireless and wired network in all common areas, lounges and restaurants that is a clear pipe to the internet.

Andrew
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: Balazs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:11:18 +0200

I think the guest-room network should be controlled by the NOC. Or if control is a too 
strong term, then they should try to assure somehow that it works properly. As the number 
of mails on this and on previous IETF shows us, there is a real need to use it.
Balazs

LANGE Andrew wrote:
> 
> We would like to reiterate that the guestroom network is not under NOC 
> control.  The hotel should be the primary point-of-contact for in-room 
> issues.  It should be understood that the hotel's resources are 
> limited.  They are doing the best that they can for our rather demanding 
> crowd.  Their network simply hasn't been beaten on like this before.  
> Please bear with them.
> 
> We are providing both a wireless and wired network in all common areas, 
> lounges and restaurants that is a clear pipe to the internet.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:56:00 +0300

Everybody complaining about the guest room network,

<The IAOC Chair hat on>

I have a bit of sentiment that people don't understand the guest room
network is not the primary responsibility of the host. It is extra what we
get if the host (this time Alcatel-Lucent) decides to provide it for us for
free. We have network requirements for hosts at
http://iaoc.ietf.org/network_requirements.html for everybody to check.

I have a bit of sentiment that the people complaining about the guest room
network have a hard time appreciating what it means to get free access to
the Internet from the hotel rooms and what it costs. Usually getting
"ownership" of the hotel network is not an option, but never it is a
priority. The priority is to get the meeting, production network to work.
That is what the host is responsible for. If you have problems with that,
you can submit a ticket at [email-masked].

In addition, no hotel networks are made for this kind of crowd. They are
made for "business people" who just download their e-mails. Not for the
hotel full of geeks running everything from bittorrent to something they
wrote last night after the bar. So, making it work would mean upgrading the
whole network - not an option.

So, please, let's stop bashing our host about something they have given us
extra!

I would like to thank our host for providing the guest room network for
free. In addition, they have done a great job hosting the meeting!

Thank you, Alcatel-Lucent!

</The IAOC Chair hat on>

Cheers,

Jonne.

PS. If anybody feels they have capability to build a better network, please,
show it by hosting one of the future meetings. You can find the hosting
opportunities from http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt. They are
clearly marked as "Host: TBD". Thank you.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: "GOLDMAN, STUART O \(STUART\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:03:17 -0500

+1

Stuart Goldman
Alcatel-Lucent 
[email-masked]
+1 602 493 8438
+1 480 414 1260 mobile
 please save a tree by not printing this e-mail.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)

<The IAOC Chair hat on>

</The IAOC Chair hat on>

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:11:57 +0100

> So, please, let's stop bashing our host about something they have  

I find this a rather condescending attitude, especially as the powers  
that be have deemed it necessary to select a venue that pretty much  
precludes any choice on the part of the participants.

I'm sure the people from the host, the regular volunteers, and maybe  
even the hotel people, are working quite hard to get everything  
working as well as can be expected. (My 60% packet loss has cleared up  
nicely, thanks for that.) But that doesn't mean we don't get to point  
out shortcomings for fear of someone taking it personally.
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: "Thomas Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:18:53 -0400

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 10:56 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re:
Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)

<The IAOC Chair hat on>

I have a bit of sentiment that people don't understand the guest room
network is not the primary responsibility of the host. It is extra what
we
get if the host (this time Alcatel-Lucent) decides to provide it for us
for
free. We have network requirements for hosts at
http://iaoc.ietf.org/network_requirements.html for everybody to check.

I have a bit of sentiment that the people complaining about the guest
room
network have a hard time appreciating what it means to get free access
to
the Internet from the hotel rooms and what it costs. Usually getting
"ownership" of the hotel network is not an option, but never it is a
priority. The priority is to get the meeting, production network to
work.
That is what the host is responsible for. If you have problems with
that,
you can submit a ticket at [email-masked].

wrote last night after the bar. So, making it work would mean upgrading
the

So, please, let's stop bashing our host about something they have given
us
extra!

</The IAOC Chair hat on>

Cheers,

Jonne.

PS. If anybody feels they have capability to build a better network,
please,
show it by hosting one of the future meetings. You can find the hosting
opportunities from http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt. They are
clearly marked as "Host: TBD". Thank you.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:07:12 +0200

On 29 jul 2008, at 00.11, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> I find this a rather condescending attitude, especially as the  
> powers that be have deemed it necessary to select a venue that  
> pretty much precludes any choice on the part of the participants.

"the powers that be" are trying to optimize location /  
internationalization / the host that PAYs preferences to location for  
their needs / and a number of factors including availability of a  
hotel. This equation is far from easy, but what worries me greatly is  
that we in the future find any hosts at all given that the only thing  
you can expect as a host is complaints and endless threads about  
visa / robbery / cookies / how the showers works threads on mailinglist.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:08:18 +0200

> clearly marked as "Host: TBD". Thank you.

I would like to after the first day extend a great thank you to the  
host and the volunteers for a great network!

Best regards,

- kurtis -

---

From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:03:25 +0100

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> I find this a rather condescending attitude ...

Iljitsch,

  That's a lot to say, given how condescending you were less than 24
hours ago regarding how stupid we must be to rate limit the traffic.

  Bill

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:23:03 -0400

+1 from here too.

Marshall

---

From: "Eric Gray" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:51:56 -0500

Hmmmm.  The wired network in my room has what certainly looks like 
a permanently attached card that says "Broadband Internet Access 
With Compliments of The Management" - which indicates (to me) that
the host's involvement in the "free" in-room network was probably
limited to selection of this very nice hotel.

But I agree that the tone of the discussion on this list has been
rather more severe toward both the sponsor(s), and the hotel, than
either deserves.  While I have had some trouble with the conference
network, I think it is improving.  The service and accomodations
of this venue are totally excellent, even if the hotel is pretty
far from the center of things, and I think we could be considerably
more patient if the hotel staff seems somewhat overwhelmed by our
strange behaviours as a group...

--
Eric Gray

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 8:23 PM
> To: Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities 
> (was Re:Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)
> 
> +1 from here too.
> 
> Marshall
> 
> > get if the host (this time Alcatel-Lucent) decides to 
> provide it for  
> > us for
> > In addition, no hotel networks are made for this kind of 
> crowd. They  
> > are
> > made for "business people" who just download their e-mails. 
> Not for  
> > the
> > hotel full of geeks running everything from bittorrent to 
> something  
> > they
> > I would like to thank our host for providing the guest room 
> network  
> > for
> > opportunities from 
> http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt. They  
> > are

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:21:21 +0100

At 7:11 PM +0200 7/28/08, Balazs Lengyel wrote:
>I think the guest-room network should be controlled by the NOC. Or 
>if control is a too strong term, then they should try to assure 
>somehow that it works properly. As the number of mails on this and 
>on previous IETF shows us, there is a real need to use it.

Fully disagree. If I can work from my room, great; if not, the lobby 
and bar and terminal room are in walking distance.

On top of us being rude (loudly talking over the host's welcoming 
talk at the Sunday reception) and demanding (not being willing to 
wait in a slowish line to buy sandwiches like regular people do), do 
we also have to be lazy? There was a time when IETFers were thankful 
when we were offered semi-reliable meeting amenities above what 
typical conference people got.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:35:10 -0500

One of the waiters handed me a YubiKey on my way into Breakfast (he said "I 
reckon this belongs to one of you guys"). Don't know where it was found, but 
I'll leave it at the registration desk...

Spencer

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:41:53 +0100

On 29 jul 2008, at 0:07, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> internationalization / the host that PAYs preferences to location

The interesting thing is that the attendees ALSO pay for this.

Now I understand that the IETF needs to get its funding where it can  
find it, but it can hardly be a surprise that if you make two sets of  
people pay for the same thing and optimize for the convenience of one  
party, the other is unhappy.

However, the network is working just fine now (for me at least), and  
the strange funding structure of the IETF is not the fault of either  
the volunteers or the host, who are actually working very hard to make  
everything work within the constraints that have been set, so this  
might be a good point to end this discussion.
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:57:56 +0100

+1

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:18:31 +0200

On 29 jul 2008, at 10.41, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> find it, but it can hardly be a surprise that if you make two sets  
> of people pay for the same thing and optimize for the convenience of  
> one party, the other is unhappy.

If you would have quoted a bit more of my email -  I actually further  
said 'This equation is far from easy, '. The problem is that - as has  
been discussed at length at IETFs for a long time - the attendance  
fees, the host sponsorship and the contributions from ISOC, all pays  
for the meetings AND the secretariat. At trust me from the years on  
the IAOC - running the IETF is not a money making business. If we  
can't find hosts, the attendance fees would have to go up  
significantly. Add to that the the ROI in marketing for a hosts on  
sponsoring an IETF in the first place is miniscule. Add to it the all  
the negative comments from the IETFXX-lists and have that attached to  
your brand and the marketing value is negative.

Personally I believe that we simply don't give the hosts (and the NOC  
volunteers) enough credit for stepping up to the task of organizing a  
meeting.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

PS, as most people have seems to have missed or ignored Andrews mail -  
issues with the hotel network should go to the hotel, not the IETF list.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:01:19 +0100

And when you find volunteer hosts which find the money, the venue and so on,
such as myself in Madrid, trying for several years, then you disqualify the
venue because is not in down-town ... A very fair comparison with this one
or even San Diego.

Madrid venue was much better (even being the first hotel in the world that
offered IPv6 in the guest rooms several years ago, no filtered
ports/protocols at all !), much better located, much cheaper, better
commuting to downtown (cheaper and shorter), better food, more restaurant
choices in the venue and around, etc.

So the first that make the possible hosts and sponsors to step down is the
organization itself with ridiculous decisions which are then taken as
irrelevant for other venues (and Dublin is a very good example).

Now I'm not sure wanting to spend anymore my cycles in retrying this again
unless there is a firm commitment. I bothered the government to much to
raise +150.000 Euros for sponsoring this and I'm not even sure they will
consider it again.

Regards,
Jordi

> From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:18:31 +0200
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom
> Network not under NOC Control)
> 
> 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Thomas Froment <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:18:44 +0200

Well, I don't know, but I believe this mailing list is not here for 
"settling the score" with ietf location selection process...

---

From: Dale Worley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:21:24 -0400

It's certainly acceptable to examine the good and bad points of any
venue.  But there is a question of attitude -- we have paid for certain
things, and have a right to expect those, but there are things we have
*not* paid for and we can't *complain* that we haven't gotten them.

(Actually, given the huge level of volunteers and sponsor support, we
have the right to a considerable amount of stuff that we have *not* paid
for -- and we should be thankful.)

But all of this trades off against cost.  Not so long ago on the list,
people were complaining of the excessive cost of the meeting.  Yes, it's
straightforward to reduce cost -- what services are you willing to
forgo?  It's also straightforward to improve services -- what are you
willing to pay?

It also doesn't help that this is a one-week event unlike any event the
venue has ever had, or ever will have again.  There's not a lot of time
for everyone to learn how to optimize all these trade-offs for this
particular audience, and certainly no incentive for the venue to make
capital expenditures to improve service for us.

Dale

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:28:20 -0500

> for -- and we should be thankful.)

Having just walked through the NOC this morning, I'm glad *I* wasn't paying 
salaries for the quality and quantity of the volunteers that are missing 
IETF working group meetings to figure out networking problems...

:-)

I won't post again on this, but I also have to say that the people who have 
been saying "thank you" to secretariat and support people who have been 
jumping on every problem when it's reported have been awesome.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:30:53 +0300

Jordi,

Your recollection of the past is a little bit different that mine. I
remember the last time you tried there were open ends in many things until
very late of the process. This and other reasons made the main host to
decide on a different venue (San Diego). Siemens was the host for that
possible meeting. The people who were mostly involved from Siemens are now
part of Nokia Siemens Network, who I happen to work for as well. The main
thing is that host was very much involved on the change of the meeting
location! If you want to talk about specifics of that time, I'm happy to
talk to you off-line.

It seems that the next scheduled European meeting without a host is at
Summer 2010. If you have a host, or funding to host, please, contact Drew
Dvorshak at [email-masked] or the IAD. If you even have a location in
mind, better it is!

Cheers,

Jonne.

On 7/29/08 1:01 PM, "ext JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
> any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:34:09 +0200

Jordi,

> raise +150.000 Euros for sponsoring this and I'm not even sure they  

At least as long as I was on the IAOC (during BTW when this proposal  
was evaluated) we every now and then (but not always) have several  
venues to select from and then does a site evaluation and weighs the  
pros and cons. That is then discussed with the localhosts and  
eventually a venue is selected. The IAOC never provides public  
comments or names the venues not selected or the reasons for it. When  
there are multiple choices there will always be venues not selected,  
of the venues that have not been selected the only one that keep  
coming back up here is that you bring up your failed bid for Madrid.  
But what I really wanted to comment on is that the above sounds like  
MAdrid was considered as an alternative to Dublin. AFAIK it never was.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:34:32 +0200

Hi all, 

Is there some special buses to go to the tonight's social or do we have
to get the regular IETF shuttle?

In the former case, is it possible to have the timetable?

Thanks,

Greg

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:41:54 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> special buses

=> from 18h30 in the front of the hotel (not from the Car Park).
intervals ~ 10 mn
Last at 20h15 reserved for people at a 18h50-19h50 session.

Return 22h30-23h30 at intervals of 5-15 mn (i.e., when full).

Transit time ~ 45 mn

According to the hand fixed paper found at the Lucent desk near
registration.

[email-masked]

PS: thanks the host to have provided the infos, not me.
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: Ed Jankiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:48:32 +0100

What we see is the tip of the iceberg.  In addition to running around 
fixing problems during this week where we can see them, the 
Alcatel-Lucent host staff, the paid staff, and community volunteers put 
in numerous hours in the dark corners and dark hours plus weeks of 
efforts to deploy the network and other facilities.  Amazing, and can't 
say thanks enough. 

An illustration of how focused these folks are:  when I asked the folks 
at the host table what they thought of the big shake-up at the top at 
Alcatel-Lucent, they said "what shake-up?"  I guess they were too busy 
to notice the headlines. 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/29/news/international/alcatel_leaders.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008072904

just wanted to add my voice to the positive side of the feedback.  I'm 
thrilled to walk in day one of each IETF knowing I can just open up my 
laptop and have instant-on service. 

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Having just walked through the NOC this morning, I'm glad *I* wasn't 
> paying salaries for the quality and quantity of the volunteers that 
> are missing IETF working group meetings to figure out networking 
> problems...
>
> :-)
>
> I won't post again on this, but I also have to say that the people who 
> have been saying "thank you" to secretariat and support people who 
> have been jumping on every problem when it's reported have been awesome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>

-- 
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research 
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  [email-masked]

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:08:56 +0200

It may be good for the 'last' bus at 8:15 to be more than one and to be
tolerant about living right on time. Everybody who meets until  7:50
needs to deposit the laptop in the room, and get back to the bus - and
this may be half of the participants at the social or more. I am
anticipating congestion. 

Dan

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Francis Dupont
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:42 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [72attendees] Moving to social event
> 
> 
> According to the hand fixed paper found at the Lucent desk 
> near registration.
>

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:27:07 +0100

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:56:00AM +0300,
 Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 56 lines which said:

> It is extra what we get if the host (this time Alcatel-Lucent)
> decides to provide it for us for free. We have network requirements
> for hosts at http://iaoc.ietf.org/network_requirements.html for
> everybody to check.

As a result of too many IETFers complaining about the host, the CEO of
Alcatel-Lucent just resigned:

http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd4x3tXDUL8h2VAQAURh_Yw!!?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource_Ctr&LMSG_CONTENT_FILE=News_Releases_2008/News_Article_001159.xml

 Alcatel-Lucent announces Chairman Serge Tchuruk and CEO Pat Russo to step down
About Us  |  Newsroom  |  Press Releases

Board to commence search for new CEO

CEO Russo to remain at helm until successor is named to ensure business continuity

Board of Directors announces plans to reorganize and change composition

Paris, July 29, 2008 - Alcatel-Lucent (Euronext Paris and NYSE: ALU) today announced changes to its leadership and Board of Directors.  The company also announced its quarterly results and demonstrated improvements to its operational results for the third straight quarter. The Company reported that it is making steady progress on the strategy the company laid out last fall.  

To pave the way for a fully aligned governance and management model going forward, the company announced the following changes to its management team and Board of Directors:  

    * Non-Executive Chairman Serge Tchuruk has decided to step down on October 1, 2008. 
    * CEO Pat Russo has decided to step down no later than the end of the year, and at the Board’s request will continue to run the company until a new CEO is in place to effect a smooth transition and maintain the continuity of the company’s business. 
    * The Board will commence a search for a new non-executive Chairman and CEO immediately.
    * The Board is also initiating a process to change the composition of the Board to a smaller group that will include new members. 

“The merger phase is now behind us.  I am proud that Alcatel-Lucent has become a world leader in a technology which is transforming our society.  It is now time that the company acquires a personality of its own, independent from its two predecessors.  The Board must also evolve and the Chairman should give the first example, which I have decided to do,” said Serge Tchuruk. 

“I am very pleased with the progress we are making especially in light of a difficult market environment,” said Pat Russo.  “Our strategy is taking hold and our results are demonstrating good operational progress.  That said, I believe it is the right time for me to step down.  The company will benefit from new leadership aligned with a newly composed Board to bring a fresh and independent perspective that will take Alcatel-Lucent to its next level of growth and development in a rapidly changing global market.  I have every desire to ensure a smooth transition of leadership within the company and I have informed the Board of my determination to work closely with them until the end of the year or sooner if a successor is named, and we are in agreement on this approach. I have great confidence in Alcatel-Lucent and believe this to be a company with tremendous potential,” said Russo.   

Now that the company has moved beyond the transitional phase of the merger, the Board has determined to restructure itself in a way consistent with the company’s needs going forward.  As part of this process the Board will reduce the size of its membership over time while adding several new members with strong industry expertise.  To initiate this process, Henry Schacht announced that he will resign from the Board immediately believing that, being a former CEO, he should not remain beyond the transitional stage of the merger.  Mr. Schacht was the CEO of Lucent Technologies prior to Ms. Russo becoming CEO in January 2002.

Alcatel-Lucent will host an audio webcast at 1:00 p.m. CET to discuss the leadership changes and the company’s second quarter financial results. The webcast can be accessed at http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/2q2008
SAFE HARBOR FOR FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Except for historical information, all other information in this press release consists of forward-looking statements within the meaning of the US Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. These forward looking statements include statements regarding the future financial and operating results of Alcatel-Lucent.  Words such as "expects," "anticipates," "targets," "projects," "intends," "plans," "believes," "estimates," variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements which are not statements of historical facts. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to assess. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties are based upon a number of important factors including, among others: our ability to appoint a new non-executive chairman and a new chief executive officer, as well as to locate additional board members with industry expertise, within the expected timeframes; our ability to operate effectively in a highly competitive industry with many participants; our ability to keep pace with technological advances and correctly identify and invest in the technologies that become commercially accepted; difficulties and delays in achieving synergies and cost savings; fluctuations in the telecommunications market; exposure to the pricing pressures in the regions in which we sell; the pricing, cost and other risks inherent in long-term sales agreements; exposure to the credit risk of customers; reliance on a limited number of contract manufacturers to supply products we sell; the social, political and economic risks of our global operations; the costs and risks associated with pension and postretirement benefit obligations; the complexity of products sold; changes to existing regulations or technical standards; existing and future litigation; difficulties and costs in protecting intellectual property rights and exposure to infringement claims by others; compliance with environmental, health and safety laws;  whether Alcatel-Lucent can continue to obtain product cost improvements and to implement cost cutting and restructuring programs, and whether these efforts will achieve their expected benefits; the economic situation in general (including exchange rate fluctuations) and uncertainties in Alcatel-Lucent’s customers’ businesses in particular; customer demand for Alcatel-Lucent’s products and services; control of costs and expenses; international growth; conditions and growth rates in the telecommunications industry; and the impact of each of these factors on sales and income. For a more complete list and description of such risks and uncertainties, refer to Alcatel-Lucent's Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007, as well as other filings by Alcatel-Lucent with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as required under the US federal securities laws and the rules and regulations of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Alcatel-Lucent disclaims any intention or obligation to update any forward-looking statements after the distribution of this news release, whether as a result of new information, future events, developments, changes in assumptions or otherwise.

About Alcatel-Lucent
Alcatel-Lucent (Euronext Paris and NYSE: ALU) provides solutions that enable service providers, enterprise and governments worldwide, to deliver voice, data and video communication services to end-users. As a leader in fixed, mobile and converged broadband networking, IP technologies, applications and services, Alcatel-Lucent offers the end-to-end solutions that enable compelling communications services for people at home, at work and on the move. With operations in more than 130 countries, Alcatel-Lucent is a local partner with global reach. The company has the most experienced global services team in the industry, and one of the largest research, technology and innovation organizations in the telecommunications industry. Alcatel-Lucent achieved revenues of Euro 17.8 billion in 2007 and is incorporated in France, with executive offices located in Paris. For more information, visit Alcatel-Lucent on the Internet: http://www.alcatel-lucent.com

Contact the Alcatel-Lucent Press Office:    [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:29:19 -0400

As the host organizer for IETF 71, I can say from very recent experience that most people would be shocked by how many volunteers, how many hours of volunteer time, and, not least, how much money it takes to sponsor and to operate an IETF meeting - to say nothing of supporting organizations such as AMS.  There is so much behind the scenes that people have no idea about, and there is months of advance preparation.  It is an exceptionally large commitment of human resources and financial resources by a host like Alcatel-Lucent, and demonstrates a host's commitment to the IETF and what we all do here in a major way.
 
So kudos to Alcatel-Lucent and any other future hosts of IETF meetings.  While it's perfectly normal to expect a certain level of service and so on, and fix broken things, sometimes keeping things in perspective is a good thing as well.  
 
Regards
Jason

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Kurt Erik Lindqvist
Sent: Tue 7/29/2008 5:18 AM
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re:Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)

Best regards,

- kurtis -

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:08:56 +0100

Dale Worley wrote:
> particular audience, 

This is key.

As long as our model has us usually going to places one time, there can be no 
learning curve.

In spite of the considerable effort to get things right each time, actually 
achieving that will fail regularly.

The only way to get reliable performance of a meeting venue is to find a few 
that we like and keep going back.

As long as we make the first priority be to find a host and let the host choose 
a (new) venue, we will keep having venue problems.  We have 15+ years of 
consistent history on this score.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:11:46 -0400

One word:  "Minneapolis"

> From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:09 PM
> Cc: [email-masked]
> As long as our model has us usually going to places one time, there
can be
> no
> The only way to get reliable performance of a meeting venue is to find
a
> few
> As long as we make the first priority be to find a host and let the
host
> choose

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:13:16 -0400

Dave Crocker wrote:

> The only way to get reliable performance of a meeting venue is to find a
> few that we like and keep going back.

C.f. Minneapolis...

-derek

-- 
Derek Atkins
Principal Software Engineer

PGP Corporation
4 Farragut Ave
Somerville, MA  02144

+1 617 623 3745 | [email-masked]

PGP Corporation -- Rest Secured.(TM)

PGP Fingerprint:
0FEE 5EA1 FF22 E0C9 4FFE
631A 9232 FF93 1C80 1DB7

This email and any attachments thereto may contain private,
confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any
attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and
permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any
attachments thereto.

---

From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:23:31 -0700

Having hosted twice... +1

	Chris

On 28 Jul 2008, at 16.07, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

>>> something they
> for their needs / and a number of factors including availability of  
> a hotel. This equation is far from easy, but what worries me greatly  
> is that we in the future find any hosts at all given that the only  
> thing you can expect as a host is complaints and endless threads  
> about visa / robbery / cookies / how the showers works threads on  
> mailinglist.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - kurtis -
>
>
>

- ---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB67593B

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:31:56 -0700 (PDT)

And we also have consistent history which says that a hosted meeting 
is much easier on everyone involved (except the host :-) and that 
hosts typically want some say in where the meeting is held. If your 
headquarters is in say, Philadelphia, you can recruit a lot of 
"volunteers" and run back to the office and borrow a printer, hub, 
switch, paper ream, or what have you.

This works well, and while I agree that having a few "hub" locations 
would be good, I also know that it isn't easy to find a willing host
for a "repeating" location.

The new location syndrome also has good sides such as permitting more
participants from a given local region. I don't have the stats on how
many more people we have this time from the UK *and* Ireland, but I
bet you there is a significant increase.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Dave Crocker wrote:
> As long as we make the first priority be to find a host and let the host
> choose a (new) venue, we will keep having venue problems.  We have 15+ years
> of consistent history on this score.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> 
>   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:22:21 -0700 (PDT)

Dave,

De-coupling the two issues is a fine idea on paper and in my 
experience almost unworkable in practice. Hosts DO want some
say in where we meet and they DO want to be near a place where
they can provide "local" support (if only from a remote office).

I would be wonderful if we had a pool of money from lots of
vendors that simply took care of all costs and logistics and
we then just get to pick the venue. Oh, wait, there is such
a pool, it's called "Organizational Membership in ISOC".

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:51:50 +0100

> is much easier on everyone involved (except the host :-) and that

First, we have very, very little experience with meetings that do not have a
"local" host.  So that making generalizations like this is pretty risky.

Second, my recollection of the one or two meetings we've had without hosts was
that they went well.

> switch, paper ream, or what have you.

And a new venue requires lots of additional volunteers, in order to figure out
the new things and fix the new problems.

> for a "repeating" location.

That's based on the idea that the 'host' needs to be associated with the venue.
  They don't.

DE-COUPLE THE TWO ISSUES.

(A side-benefit is that this makes it plausible to have multiple hosts for the
event, with each able to pay a smaller amount...)

> participants from a given local region.

That was important in the mid-90s.  It isn't any more, in terms of getting IETF
work done.

The core question that was put forward during one of these discussions -- by
Fred Baker while he was Chair, I think -- was:  What helps get IETF work done?

I think that's the right question.

A venue that is remote, expensive, unreliable, or otherwise problematic does not
help the IETF do its work.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:52:05 +0100

Ole,

   This script that you and I are following has become a cliche.  To break out
of it and conduct serious discussion, we need to think harder about underlying
assumptions, as well as treating asserted data with some skepticism.

> they can provide "local" support (if only from a remote office).

1. You are quite wrong.  Most conferences, association meetings, and the like,
choose a venue independent of sponsorship.  Hence sponsorship is about
sponsoring, not about doing the grunt work.  Long ago, we developed a meeting
model based on some coupling of roles and services, which are so entrenched any
attempt to suggest changing it gets responses that are firm, reflexive and not
supported by the facts.  Responding rigidly and defensively is not a good way to
pursue necessary changes.  It is a good way to ensure that persistent problems
persist.

2. The IETF insists on a model that performs what it claims is an optimization
when a) it's highly local while ignoring larger inefficiencies, and b) probably
isn't all that optimal locally.

When looking at persistent problems, improvement is never achieved by starting
to defend core assumptions that are, in fact, the primary reasons for the problem.

By insisting that the IETF start with choosing a host, most of our meeting venue
problems ensue.  It ensures all of the instabilities we repeatedly experience.
It ensures hidden costs -- thereby making claims of reduced cost, by virtue of
having hosts perform tasks off the IETF's books -- that offset supposed savings.
  Note, for example, the substantially higher cost of taxis because the Dublin
facility is so remote.  While taxi cost might seem a silly, small point, it
becomes a large one when applied to the entire population of attendees, as well
as applied repeatedly if attendees want to get elsewhere.  (Yes, the added bus
service helps, but not enough.)

When this core error is highlighted, we always get series of tautological
arguments attempting to assert that the error is required.  It isn't.  There is
more than sufficient experience in the rest of the world to show that the error
need not be made.

> a pool, it's called "Organizational Membership in ISOC".

Again, the IETF walked down a path that created a strategic problem and would
rather continue an operational mode that ensure significant IETF meeting
problems periodically, rather than fix the underlying problem.

In this case, I think that trade association funding details could be relevant:
  They have both "membership" and "sponsorship" and it works fine.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:43:13 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Dave Crocker wrote:

> > De-coupling the two issues is a fine idea on paper and in my experience
> > almost unworkable in practice. Hosts DO want some
> 1. You are quite wrong.  Most conferences, association meetings, and 
>    the like, choose a venue independent of sponsorship.  Hence 
>    sponsorship is about sponsoring, not about doing the grunt work.  
>    Long ago, we developed a meeting model based on some coupling of 
>    roles and services, which are so entrenched any attempt to 
>    suggest changing it gets responses that are firm, reflexive and 
>    not supported by the facts.  Responding rigidly and defensively 
>    is not a good way to pursue necessary changes.  It is a good way 
>    to ensure that persistent problems persist.

Actually, it is you that is wrong. We HAVE a model which DOES allow a 
so-called turn-key solution where the sponsor(s) have no other role 
than paying the bills and do not have any say in the selection of 
venue. The FACT is that VERY few sponsors opt for this model, 
preferring instead the other model.

We could of course completely OUTLAW this option, and insist on only
offering the turnkey solution. THAT is a discussion worth having, as
is the idea of a fund with enough money in it to fund the IETF 
forever, i.e., ask for a reasonably large chunk of cash from a number
of sources ONCE to get the fund going.

Ole (speaking for myself and not the IAOC).
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:24:05 +0100

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:36:40 +0100

Ole,

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:49:24 +0100

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:48:55 +0100

Ole,

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:36:30 +0100

Hi Jonne,

This was not the information I got, at least I don't recall being informed
at all that the venue was not selected by a Siemens decision, on the other
way around, I was informed that was not suitable according to the IAOC
decision.

One of the issues (as I recall being told) was the availability of
restaurants. The information that the IAOC got about that was wrong, as I
discussed with the IAD afterwards (when I was informed of that being one of
the problems).

The other one I recall was the venue was too expensive. However I also
indicated when I knew the offer you got, that I can manage to get a better
deal, and indeed, I got a better offer (I think it was around 15% cut) the
morning after you took the decision of not using that venue. I was not
allowed to contact the venue management before because I was asked by the
secretariat not to do so, and of course, I respected that decision, but then
wanted to prove that it was a WRONG negotiation.

This things happen because the process is so secret, because people that
know the venue, even has direct contacts with the venue (having organized
other big events there, having set up IPv6 there, etc.), is not allowed to
participate in the negotiation with the venue.

Having the help of local people, with local negotiation skills, and not
taking it, seems to me really silly and not a good thing for the community.
This need to change.

Of course, you will not have always that local people, and you not
necessarily can trust them, but their inputs and their help in the
negotiation can't be ignored. Even do, the IAOC still has the final decision
power, right ? So nothing negative in the process, just a lot of possible
hands to be used.

Last but not least, I even offered to be the *HOST*. I actually did since I
had the idea to bring IETF to Madrid in summer 2001 when I talked for the
first time about that during the London meeting with the secretariat.

So, now tell me, why this or that host has higher priority to host a meeting
? It should be more a planning question, and if the plan was to have that
meeting in Europe, the host offering Europe should take precedence,
specially having offered it since so long time.

Now, I'm not really interested and even discouraged to try to host again in
Madrid, but if Drew drop me a message and I get a firm commitment that I'm
not going to waste my time in getting a similar or even better situation
(considering funding from the government/others, cost of the venue, etc.) as
when I did the previous time, then and only then, I will reconsider my
position. I'm happy to spend as many of my cycles as required, but
definitively will not waste them in a useless way.

Regards,
Jordi

> From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:30:53 +0300
> To: Jordi Palet Martínez <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:33:14 +0300

Jordi,

First of all, I'm a bit sorry you didn't speak up during the IAOC open mike
session earlier today. If there is a feeling, there is something "secret"
about meeting location or hosting opportunities it means that we have failed
in our communication. However, I'm not sure this is a general sentiment. I
might be wrong.

For the IETF 67, which I believe we are talking about, I remember we were
quite a bit in a hurry, and we had to do some of the decision rather
quickly. As there were a range of open issues and some risks with the venue
at the time, the decision was to go to San Diego instead.

The important point was that the decision to go to San Diego was done
together with the IAOC and the host, Siemens. Of course, the ultimate
responsibility is at IAOC. However, we did this decision together with the
host.

I can assure you, there was no general sentiment in the IAOC against Spain,
or Madrid as you seem to think. I can say from my part that it is the
contrary!

What comes to negotiations, I have to say that it is quite important that we
do keep the negotiation under the IASA/IETF control. Perhaps, we could have
used more local knowledge that you might have been able to provide at this
case. It is very important for the IETF that it is represented by itself,
and there is no ambiguity on who represents the IETF and who doesn't.

However, it wasn't the cost alone that made us to go to San Diego, which I
have tried to say the whole time. It was a combination of reasons. One of
the main reasons was the time pressure. We had to end the negotiations at
some point, and that was the point for us. We did that decision together
with the host.

I am sorry you feel offended by the process around organizing IETF#67. This
was not the purpose. The purpose was to have a good, productive meeting. I
think we did that.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:18:49 +0100

I didn't suggested that Madrid was bidding against Dublin.

Regards,
Jordi

> Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:34:09 +0200
> To: Jordi Palet Martínez <[email-masked]>

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org