Subject: Re: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:47:06 +0100

--On 30. desember 2004 22:05 -0800 "Glen Zorn (gwz)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Paris in August:
> http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm

at first I just smiled at this, then I realized that the poster apparently 
meant this seriously.......

Of course, the MAXIMUM temperatures quoted in the *exceptional* Paris 
summer of 2003 were 104 degrees Fahrenheit; I guess people who have 
survived Southern California will feel right at home.
To quote Slashdot: It's always interesting to RTFA.

Happy new year, everyone!

                           Harald

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

---

From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 18:20:02 -0800

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <> supposedly scribbled:

> --On 30. desember 2004 22:05 -0800 "Glen Zorn (gwz)"
<[email-masked]>
> wrote: 
> at first I just smiled at this, then I realized that the poster
> apparently meant this seriously....... 

Yes, I did (though I admit I see little humor is the story).
However, my main point was not so much that we would die in droves
(or at all); more to the point is the question of why we seem to go
out of our way to find unpleasant weather for our meetings.  

> summer of 2003 were 104 degrees Fahrenheit; 

2003 was, indeed, exceptional.  OTOH, it is hardly exceptional that
everyone who can leave the city in August, does.  This is no doubt
because it is just so damn pleasant they can't stand it, right?

> I guess people who have

As the old joke about Hell goes, "It ain't the heat, it's the
humidity."

> To quote
> Slashdot: It's always interesting to RTFA.  

Ha Ha.  You (and others) have made the point quite well that the
majority of IETFers are probably hardy enough to suffer through the
week without actually dying.  So what?  The real question is why we
must suffer at all (I'm actually rather surprised that Phoenix has
not become the permanent summer choice -- 130F would certainly keep
us in the hotel where (apparently) we belong.

> Happy new year, everyone!

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by
simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:14:03 +0100

>because it is just so damn pleasant they can't stand it, right?

They now build a true beach on the Seine river - right in the core of Paris 
- during the month of August which makes the stay fun. Usually the weather 
changes by August 15th to much more acceptable. Business starts back on the 
last week of August.

The real danger in Paris is to bump into me :-) Another problem is 
obviously the hotels rates in the summer season. Anyway for decades I use 
the month of August for new software development, because the waether is 
usually nice when staying home and there is nobody around, only Americans 
and Japanese, and now Chinese. They probably survive/enjoy it, since they 
keep coming.

jfc

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:36:31 +0100

> because it is just so damn pleasant they can't stand it, right?

Well, AFAIK _everywhere_ in the US having air conditioning at home is 
common, while this is rare in middle / northern Europe. Don't forget we 
are located much further to the north than major population centers 
elsewhere in the world.

Even though august is the warmest month, I think going on vacation 
during that time is more a cultural thing than a climatological one. I 
don't know how many vacation days people get in France, but I'm pretty 
sure it's much more than what people in the US get (here in Holland 
it's 22 or 24 days a year minimum).

But anyway, if a conference center/hotel is going to hold more than a 
thousand people, they'll have to have air conditioning, and if you 
don't skimp on the hotel it will have this as well, so you'll be 
exposed to the blistering Paris heat for just a few hours a day...

(And what I understand from the extra deaths due to the heat is that 
it's people who die slightly earlier than they would have otherwise. If 
it were a more fundamental problem this would shed a very different 
light on the US practice to ship the elderly off to Florida...)

BTW, how much worse are the Minneapolis temperatures in march vs those 
in november?

---

From: "Steve Silverman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:52:05 -0500

This is a bizaare thread.  As someone who has been Paris a dozen times
and several of those visits in the
august, this is one of the best cities in the world to visit.  I
highly recommend extending your stay around the meeting to enjoy the
many tourist attractions. Great food, great musueums,  just walking
the streets.  Get a few good guide books.
I just hope I can get support to attend this meeting.

Steve Silverman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of JFC
> (Jefsey) Morfin
> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 10:14 PM
> To: [email-masked]; 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!
>
>
> This message was passed through
> [email-masked], which is a sublist of
> [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on
> what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML
> Administrator ([email-masked]).
>

---

From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:33:37 -0800

Iljitsch van Beijnum <mailto:[email-masked]> supposedly
scribbled:

>>> Of course, the MAXIMUM temperatures quoted in the *exceptional*
>>> Paris summer of 2003 were 104 degrees Fahrenheit;
> 
> common, 

Actually, hardly anyone has AC here in Seattle because historically
it's been unneeded.  

> while this is rare in middle / northern Europe. Don't forget
> we are located much further to the north than major population
> centers elsewhere in the world.   
> 
> during that time is more a cultural thing than a climatological
one.
> I don't know how many vacation days people get in France, but I'm
> pretty sure it's much more than what people in the US get (here in
> Holland it's 22 or 24 days a year minimum).    
> 

I hope so: as I recall, the air conditioning at the hotel in Munich
was completely inadequate, to the point that people were passing out
in conference rooms...
 
> it's people who die slightly earlier than they would have
otherwise.
> If it were a more fundamental problem this would shed a very
> different light on the US practice to ship the elderly off to
> Florida...)

We do not "ship the elderly off" to Florida (or Arizona, etc.).
Only those who can afford to, go; and I assure you, they have AC.
   
> 
> BTW, how much worse are the Minneapolis temperatures in march vs
> those in november? 

Let's not go there: for some reason the powers-that-be have decided
that it's a great idea to gather at least once if not twice a year
in a place where people live like pet rodents, scurrying through
tunnels to avoid their own homicidal weather and (apparently) a trip
to the Mall (always capitalized, like "God" or "Rome") is considered
to be a "social" event.  I don't understand & I don't think I want
to, though a forensic psychologist might find it a rich area for
research.

Hope this helps,

~gwz

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:19:43 +0000

This is indeed a bizarre thread..

As a near neighbour (UK), I can tell you that 2003 was indeed exceptional 
across most of Europe.  My home area north east of London was reduced to a 
desert by the end of August, and there were some accelerated deaths due to 
heat exhaustion.

Things reverted to type in 2004 with a thoroughly wet and pretty cold 
August which Paris suffered as well.  With luck we will have a more 
'average' summer this year and it will be pleasantly warm!

The reason traditionally that Paris emptied in August was that everybody 
got their holidays (vacations) at the same time (especially the central 
government) for the whole month, and they headed for somewhere which was 
guaranteed to be warmer and sunnier, like Provence.  Now personally I would 
consider heading for, say, Nice or Sophia Antipolis in August would be 
tantamount to committing suicide - 38 deg C regularly, horrendous traffic, 
too many mosquitos at sea level - but that is a matter of opinion.  AFAIC 
Paris in August is fine... still too many tourists and some things (like 
some restaurants) are shut but generally it will be OK and there is more 
than enough to see.

Oh, and BTW I can go there on an (air-conditioned) train in only 3 hours.
The USA should invest in a few high speed trains.. they are the world's 
best way to travel.

Regards,
Elwyn

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 19:19:56 -0500

> to, though a forensic psychologist might find it a rich area for

Shrug....  I've always liked Minneapolis, myself.  I've always
considered it a great place for an IETF meeting.

						- Ted

---

From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:58:04 +1100

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> On Behalf Of Theodore Ts'o
|> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 11:20 AM
|> To: Glen Zorn (gwz)
|> Cc: 'Iljitsch van Beijnum'; 'IETF Discussion'
|> Subject: Re: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!
|>
|> Shrug....  I've always liked Minneapolis, myself.  I've
|> always considered it a great place for an IETF meeting.

Australia isn't bad in August :).  Perhaps some thought could be given to
holding some meetings in more regional areas also, not just major cities.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch (who lives out in the boondocks of NSW Australia).

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:56:23 +0200

> us in the hotel where (apparently) we belong.

Yeah, but that's dry heat. It's not that bad really.

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:28:59 +0100

--On lørdag, januar 01, 2005 18:20:02 -0800 "Glen Zorn (gwz)" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> must suffer at all....

injecting the opinionating with some facts.....

- the dates for future IETF meetings are set in advance, due to extensive 
arguments by IETFers and other standards organizations that having the IETF 
schedule their meetings on short notice and against other meetings is a Bad 
Thing.

- when France Telecom suggested that they could sponsor one of the 2005 
IETF meetings, none of the 2005 meetings had sponsors. So they (France 
Telecom and Foretec) started investigating sponsoring the spring meeting.

- It turned out that at those dates, there were no suitable facilities to 
be found in places where they wanted to sponsor the meeting. So they moved 
on to the next meeting - August.

- After some searching, a suitable venue was available in Paris. I received 
the suggestion (with some alternatives), and said that I found this venue 
acceptable.

Making IETFers suffer or not because of the weather didn't factor into the 
equation. Honoring previous promises on dates, getting a sponsor for a 
non-US meeting, and finding a location that was likely to work for the IETF 
to get work done did.

                          Harald

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 08:18:55 -0500

--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 11:58 +1100 Dassa <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Australia isn't bad in August :).  Perhaps some thought could
> be given to holding some meetings in more regional areas also,
> not just major cities.
> 

Dassa,

For better or worse, we've had a preference for locations close
to major airports with significant international connections.
We haven't been consistent about it (note, e.g., San Diego),
but, unlike that other organization whose name starts with "I"
(not IEEE, Glen), we have considered it a really bad thing if
most of the attendees have to spend two days getting to and/or
from a meeting: turning a five-day meeting into an eight- or
nine-day one is really hard on those who have other things to do
besides going to meetings.    I have no idea how the boondocks
of NSW would fall on that criterion, but it is what has kept us
near or in fairly major cities.

    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:26:10 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
> Making IETFers suffer or not because of the weather didn't factor into 
> the equation. Honoring previous promises on dates, getting a sponsor for 
> a non-US meeting, and finding a location that was likely to work for the 
> IETF to get work done did.

And thankyou for that. That the result is a trip to one the nicest cities
in the world is a happy coincidence, of course, but your three criteria
are the important ones.

    Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:21:37 +0100

> The USA should invest in a few high speed trains.. they are the world's 

There's a slightly bigger pond between the U.S. and France...

Eliot

---

From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 07:55:15 +1100

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> On Behalf Of John C Klensin
|> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 12:19 AM
|> To: [email-masked]; 'IETF Discussion'
|> Subject: RE: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!
|> Dassa,
|>
|> For better or worse, we've had a preference for locations
|> close to major airports with significant international connections.
|> We haven't been consistent about it (note, e.g., San Diego),
|> but, unlike that other organization whose name starts with "I"
|> (not IEEE, Glen), we have considered it a really bad thing
|> if most of the attendees have to spend two days getting to
|> and/or from a meeting: turning a five-day meeting into an
|> eight- or nine-day one is really hard on those who have
|> other things to do
|> besides going to meetings.    I have no idea how the boondocks
|> of NSW would fall on that criterion, but it is what has kept
|> us near or in fairly major cities.
|>

Hello John

I was being a little tongue in cheek but the suggestion of regional centers
being used is one I pursue for a lot of groups.  Living in the country in a
smallish city, a lot of meetings occur in the capitals that I and others
just don't get a chance to attend.  I'm sure it would be the same in a lot
of areas.  I can understand the issues but the benefits all round may
overcome them.  For instance where I live is only an hour flight from
Sydney, you ask, why don't you fly there for meetings and I have to explain,
being in a regional area, the finances available for travel are limited.  We
tend to get paid less than equilivant workers in the capitals and companies
out here are less likely to approve spending on non-essential travel.  It is
also a fact that connections out in regional areas are often less than
optimal for most people so this has an impact for online participation.  It
is only recently I was able to get ADSL at home for instance and operated
for years with a dialup that meant long hours for participation online and I
missed a lot of broadcasts due to downloading constraints.

My suggestion is the IETF considers moving some meetings out to regional
centres within reasonable travel of the major ingress airports in an effort
to promote awareness and participation.  Within the States and other
countries, I'm sure there would be some benefits in holding meetings at
cities with populations of 30,000 - 100,000 or so rather than the capitals
and other major cities with populations into the millions.

There are issues with such locations and they may be insurmountable but I
would like to see the idea considered.  Given more people making lifestyle
changes that involve moving away from major cities, it may become more
important in the future.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

---

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:26:07 -0800

I don't know how airline pricing works in .au - but here in the .us it
seems that adding a short flight into a more regional airport can more
than double the cost of an airplane ticket.

Also note that a town of 100,000 will seldom have conference space that
can host a conference that attracts 1500 people - I know of no such
facility in  Hillsboro (where I live) that is outside of Portland (more
a suburb, than a regional center).  I would be interested in knowing
what somewhere like Spokaine, Boise, or other smaller site might have.

Bill 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Dassa
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 12:55 PM
To: 'John C Klensin'; 'IETF Discussion'
Subject: RE: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!

Hello John

I was being a little tongue in cheek but the suggestion of regional
centers
being used is one I pursue for a lot of groups.  Living in the country
in a
smallish city, a lot of meetings occur in the capitals that I and others
just don't get a chance to attend.  I'm sure it would be the same in a
lot
of areas.  I can understand the issues but the benefits all round may
overcome them.  For instance where I live is only an hour flight from
Sydney, you ask, why don't you fly there for meetings and I have to
explain,
being in a regional area, the finances available for travel are limited.
We
tend to get paid less than equilivant workers in the capitals and
companies
out here are less likely to approve spending on non-essential travel.
It is
also a fact that connections out in regional areas are often less than
optimal for most people so this has an impact for online participation.
It
is only recently I was able to get ADSL at home for instance and
operated
for years with a dialup that meant long hours for participation online
and I
missed a lot of broadcasts due to downloading constraints.

My suggestion is the IETF considers moving some meetings out to regional
centres within reasonable travel of the major ingress airports in an
effort
to promote awareness and participation.  Within the States and other
countries, I'm sure there would be some benefits in holding meetings at
cities with populations of 30,000 - 100,000 or so rather than the
capitals
and other major cities with populations into the millions.

There are issues with such locations and they may be insurmountable but
I
would like to see the idea considered.  Given more people making
lifestyle
changes that involve moving away from major cities, it may become more
important in the future.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

---

From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:59:06 -0800

Bill Strahm <> supposedly scribbled:

> I don't know how airline pricing works in .au - but here in the
.us
> it seems that adding a short flight into a more regional airport
can
> more than double the cost of an airplane ticket.  
> 
> Also note that a town of 100,000 will seldom have conference space
> that can host a conference that attracts 1500 people - I know of
no
> such facility in  Hillsboro (where I live) that is outside of
> Portland (more a suburb, than a regional center).  I would be
> interested in knowing what somewhere like Spokaine, Boise, or
other
> smaller site might have.

I think that it might be possible in Spokane (grew up there but
haven't been back in years).  
     
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf
> Of Dassa 
>>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
>>> Behalf Of John C Klensin Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 12:19
AM
>>> To: [email-masked]; 'IETF Discussion'
to
>>> major airports with significant international connections.
but,
>>> unlike that other organization whose name starts with "I"
most
>>> of the attendees have to spend two days getting to and/or from a
>>> meeting: turning a five-day meeting into an
>>> eight- or nine-day one is really hard on those who have other
>>> things to do besides going to meetings.    I have no idea how
the
>>> boondocks 
> centers being used is one I pursue for a lot of groups.  Living in
> the country in a smallish city, a lot of meetings occur in the
> capitals that I and others just don't get a chance to attend.  I'm
> sure it would be the same in a lot of areas.  I can understand the
> issues but the benefits all round may overcome them.  For instance
> where I live is only an hour flight from Sydney, you ask, why
don't
> you fly there for meetings and I have to explain, being in a
regional
> area, the finances available for travel are limited. We       
> companies out here are less likely to approve spending on
> non-essential travel.  
> It is
> also a fact that connections out in regional areas are often less
> than optimal for most people so this has an impact for online
> participation.  
> It
> operated for years with a dialup that meant long hours for
> participation online and I missed a lot of broadcasts due to
> downloading constraints.   
> 
> My suggestion is the IETF considers moving some meetings out to
> regional centres within reasonable travel of the major ingress
> airports in an effort to promote awareness and participation.
Within
> the States and other countries, I'm sure there would be some
benefits
> in holding meetings at cities with populations of 30,000 - 100,000
or
> so rather than the capitals and other major cities with
populations
> into the millions.      
> 
> There are issues with such locations and they may be
insurmountable
> but I would like to see the idea considered.  Given more people
> making lifestyle changes that involve moving away from major
cities,
> it may become more important in the future.   
> 
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> 
> 
> 

Hope this helps,

~gwz

---

From: "Thomas Gal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:19:00 -0800

Couple of questions:

-What kind of city with a population of 75,000 has hotel accommodations for
2000 people unless it's a tourist Mecca and likely expensive and overbooked?
-What kind of mass transit does your typical city of that size have? On that
note, what kind of car rental capacity is it going to have? Even though I'm
from San Diego, certainly being able to go places on the subway/bus like we
could in DC makes it a MUCH better location than a place like SD where it is
VERY spread out, everyone has a car, and public transport is scarce relative
to a lot of other places in the world.
-If you can only just ADSL do you think a remote location will have the
bandwidth to host 2000 IETFers sucking up bandwidth with their laptops and
trying to broadcast meetings out to distant locations?
-What kind of small city of such population has a large corporation willing
to sponsor an IETF event?
-How does making a big event take place in a small town help attendance?

As for a couple of your propositions:

-People usually get paid less outside of large cities because the cost of
living is less so I don't see how that has any bearing, other than forcing
everyone, including people living in other small towns to travel extra, and
certainly guaranteeing that more people have to travel rather than less.
-When you say "connections out in regional areas are often less than optimal
for most people so this has an impact on online participation" I'm curious
how putting a meeting outside a city would do ANYTHING for that situation,
other than make travel more difficult and connectivity more limited.
Certainly the people who live out of the range of high speed connectivity
will not be helped by this maneuver.
-You say "I'm sure there would be benefits in holding meetings at cities
with populations ....." but don't state any

So, I'm not trying to be ruthless. Certainly moving out of a major
metropolis does reduce many headaches/problems such as:
-local costs: food/lodging etc.
-less traffic and hassles associated with big cities 

But really these are convenience issues whereas the benefits of large venues
address direct issues that relate to having a major conference:
-lodging: big hotels with adequate facilities for such an event, as well as
a reasonable number of more inexpensive lodgings for people on a budget
-transport infrastructure: planes/trains/busses/subway/taxi
-Entertainment: Yes people would like to have something to do in a place
they go for a conference rather than being stuck with a hotel and a
restaurant(reminds me of a couple trips to IBM in Burlington Vermont).
Especially for those of us who pay for our trips to IETF meetings, they end
up being pseudo-vacations to be able to justify.
-Communications infrastructure: High bandwidth for IETF participants and
multicast sessions.
-Proximity: At our last meeting in DC there was an FTC summit on spam that
many folks attended, and I personally attended a satellite meeting at UMD.
Certainly being in a small town precludes the event from being near other
large meetings, as well as organizations such as universities and larger
corporations that provide local attendees, sponsorship, and other
possibilities for people who are attending.

Personally I'd LOVE to see more meetings in other parts of the world, as it
adds a lot to a meeting, but I really don't see any far-reaching benefits to
moving away from major city/metropolis areas, and can see a lot of reasons
why it would be a problem.

Just my thoughts.......

-Tom

[email-masked]  

> 
> Hello John
> 
> I was being a little tongue in cheek but the suggestion of 
> regional centers being used is one I pursue for a lot of 
> groups.  Living in the country in a smallish city, a lot of 
> meetings occur in the capitals that I and others just don't 
> get a chance to attend.  I'm sure it would be the same in a 
> lot of areas.  I can understand the issues but the benefits 
> all round may overcome them.  For instance where I live is 
> only an hour flight from Sydney, you ask, why don't you fly 
> there for meetings and I have to explain, being in a regional 
> area, the finances available for travel are limited.  We tend 
> to get paid less than equilivant workers in the capitals and 
> non-essential travel.  It is also a fact that connections out 
> in regional areas are often less than optimal for most people 
> so this has an impact for online participation.  It is only 
> recently I was able to get ADSL at home for instance and 
> My suggestion is the IETF considers moving some meetings out 
> to regional centres within reasonable travel of the major 
> ingress airports in an effort to promote awareness and 
> participation.  Within the States and other countries, I'm 
> sure there would be some benefits in holding meetings at 
> cities with populations of 30,000 - 100,000 or so rather than 
> the capitals and other major cities with populations into the 
> millions.
> 
> insurmountable but I would like to see the idea considered.  
> Given more people making lifestyle changes that involve 
> moving away from major cities, it may become more important 
> in the future.
> 
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 22:21:43 +1100

Responses inline as appropriate.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Thomas Gal [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:19 AM
|> To: [email-masked]; 'John C Klensin'; 'IETF Discussion'
|> Subject: RE: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!
|>
|> Couple of questions:
|>
|> -What kind of city with a population of 75,000 has hotel
|> accommodations for 2000 people unless it's a tourist Mecca
|> and likely expensive and overbooked?

A lot of regional centres are geared to large numbers of tourists/visitors.
As for expensive and overbooked, I find most large cities have prices two or
three times those in regional centres for accommadation and as any use of a
regional centre would be a big bonus to the host city, there is scope for
negotiation and I'm sure additional price cuts.

|> -What kind of mass transit does your typical city of that
|> size have? On that note, what kind of car rental capacity is
|> it going to have? Even though I'm from San Diego, certainly
|> being able to go places on the subway/bus like we could in
|> DC makes it a MUCH better location than a place like SD
|> where it is VERY spread out, everyone has a car, and public
|> transport is scarce relative to a lot of other places in the world.

A reasonable sized regional centre would have some public transport.  Mostly
buses in Australia but a lot of regional city would be within easy walking
distance anyway.  For other sites, it wouldn't take much to organise some
laid on transport to be available.  Car rental may be an issue but not
impossible if advance bookings are made.  I don't know enough about other
countries to comment but in Australia larger regional centres are mostly
geared to handle a large influx of people for short periods, they often host
district shows and other events where there may be an influx of several
thousand people for a week or so.  Places with large tourist attractions
would also have the infrastructure to handle large numbers and they would be
more than willing to put them to good use during off seasons.

|> -If you can only just ADSL do you think a remote location
|> will have the bandwidth to host 2000 IETFers sucking up
|> bandwidth with their laptops and trying to broadcast
|> meetings out to distant locations?

In Australia there is often high bandwidth available in the regional cities
but only if you are close to the city centre where the function centres and
other facilities would be.  It is when you get a few kilometres away that
broadband is a problem.  Also, broadband is still being rolled out so
although available in most city centres, it hasn't reached the domestic
market as yet in a lot of regional areas.

|> -What kind of small city of such population has a large
|> corporation willing to sponsor an IETF event?
|> -How does making a big event take place in a small town help
|> attendance?

Large corporations also deal with the regional cities, PR coverage would
still be effective and possibly more positive.  I'm not sure that sponsors
would take the location into too much account but may be influenced by a
lower spend.  It is an outreach geasture that may attract interest and
additional participation.

|> As for a couple of your propositions:
|>
|> -People usually get paid less outside of large cities
|> because the cost of living is less so I don't see how that
|> has any bearing, other than forcing everyone, including
|> people living in other small towns to travel extra, and
|> certainly guaranteeing that more people have to travel
|> rather than less.

No, that is the perception that is often quoted and the reason given but is
not always fact.  I would normally travel less than most people working in a
captial city.  For instance in Sydney it may take a person an hour to travel
to work whilst in my city the majority can get to work in ten minutes.  To
travel 7 kilometres in a major city can be a real hassle and take hours but
in a regional centre you may travel many kilometres in minutes.

That is not to say living and working in a major city may not be more
expensive.  There are some things more expensive such as housing for
instance that really make a difference but a lot of things such as food and
entertainment may be cheaper.  The employment prospectives are usually
better in a major city also.

|> -When you say "connections out in regional areas are often
|> less than optimal for most people so this has an impact on
|> online participation" I'm curious how putting a meeting
|> outside a city would do ANYTHING for that situation, other
|> than make travel more difficult and connectivity more limited.
|> Certainly the people who live out of the range of high speed
|> connectivity will not be helped by this maneuver.
|> -You say "I'm sure there would be benefits in holding
|> meetings at cities with populations ....." but don't state any

The benefit would be those with sub-standard connections would have the
opportunity to participate where otherwise they might not have the
opportunity.  It would also assist with focusing on the issue of increasing
broadband uptake and opportunities.  It would certainly be a good PR
exercise.  I could expand this but to be honest, if the advantages can not
be seen or imagined already, then I'd most likely be wasting time and
bandwidth.

|> So, I'm not trying to be ruthless. Certainly moving out of a
|> major metropolis does reduce many headaches/problems such as:
|> -local costs: food/lodging etc.
|> -less traffic and hassles associated with big cities
|>
|> But really these are convenience issues whereas the benefits
|> of large venues address direct issues that relate to having
|> a major conference:
|> -lodging: big hotels with adequate facilities for such an
|> event, as well as a reasonable number of more inexpensive
|> lodgings for people on a budget -transport infrastructure:
|> planes/trains/busses/subway/taxi
|> -Entertainment: Yes people would like to have something to
|> do in a place they go for a conference rather than being
|> stuck with a hotel and a restaurant(reminds me of a couple
|> trips to IBM in Burlington Vermont).
|> Especially for those of us who pay for our trips to IETF
|> meetings, they end up being pseudo-vacations to be able to justify.
|> -Communications infrastructure: High bandwidth for IETF
|> participants and multicast sessions.
|> -Proximity: At our last meeting in DC there was an FTC
|> summit on spam that many folks attended, and I personally
|> attended a satellite meeting at UMD.
|> Certainly being in a small town precludes the event from
|> being near other large meetings, as well as organizations
|> such as universities and larger corporations that provide
|> local attendees, sponsorship, and other possibilities for
|> people who are attending.
|>
|> Personally I'd LOVE to see more meetings in other parts of
|> the world, as it adds a lot to a meeting, but I really don't
|> see any far-reaching benefits to moving away from major
|> city/metropolis areas, and can see a lot of reasons why it
|> would be a problem.
|>
|> Just my thoughts.......

And you raise a lot of valid points.  It was not my intention to get on a
high horse and preach about what should be done.  Only to put the suggestion
forward for discussion and consideration.  I'm happy to see a thoughtful
response such as your own.

There are disadvantages and advantages in any location.  It doesn't hurt to
hash over them now and again and see if there has been any change in the
balance.

Thank you.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

---

From: Mark Prior <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:52:07 +1030

> negotiation and I'm sure additional price cuts.

Not many regional cities would have the conference facilities that will 
cope with an IETF, it's not your normal conference that just needs a 
single large plenary hall.

I will also note that in 2000 Adelaide, a city of around 1 million 
people, struggled for hotel rooms given that people not associated with 
the IETF also wanted hotel rooms in the city :)

Mark.

---

From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 07:27:25 +1100

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> On Behalf Of Mark Prior
|> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 12:22 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: 'IETF Discussion'
|> Subject: Re: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!
|>
|> Dassa wrote:
|>
|> > |> -What kind of city with a population of 75,000 has hotel
|> > |> accommodations for 2000 people unless it's a tourist Mecca and
|> > |> likely expensive and overbooked?
|> >
|> > A lot of regional centres are geared to large numbers of
tourists/visitors.
|> > As for expensive and overbooked, I find most large cities have prices
|> > two or three times those in regional centres for accommadation and as
|> > any use of a regional centre would be a big bonus to the host city,
|> > there is scope for negotiation and I'm sure additional price cuts.
|>
|> Not many regional cities would have the conference
|> facilities that will cope with an IETF, it's not your normal
|> conference that just needs a single large plenary hall.

This may be the biggest issue.  True a lot of regional cities wouldn't have
the facilities.  Some do however.  It may mean that all the conference rooms
are not at the same location but the distance between them would not be
great.  Usually within a 5-10 minute walk.  I can think of at least two
regional cities in NSW that could cope fairly easily and I'm sure there
would be more in Australia.

|> I will also note that in 2000 Adelaide, a city of around 1
|> million people, struggled for hotel rooms given that people
|> not associated with the IETF also wanted hotel rooms in the city :)

True, in a regional city, not everyone would be able to stay in the one
place and would be scattered around the city at various hotels, motels and
other accommadation.  I know of a few regional cities that can handle the
numbers talked about so far, there are sure to be others.  The timing would
have to be right so other major events are not being held at the same time
but that sort of problem exists for capital and major cities also.  For
instance Tamworth has a massive influence of people for the Country Music
Festival.  It is hard to find acccommadation there unless booked well in
advance.  I have a chat to our local Tourism Officer and see just what sort
of figures are available for some of the regional cities with regard to
facilities and how many visitors they get/can handle.  It may be
interesting.

Actually I find it hard to understand Adelaide having issues with
accommadation unless there was another major event at the same time.  How
does it cope with motor sport events, they used to hold some there didn't
they?

There would certainly be a bit more work in preparing for a meet such as the
IETF and there may be too many issues to consider regional cities but it is
a worthwhile exercise to see just what the disadvantages and advantages may
be.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:33:09 -0600

Thus spake"Dassa" <[email-masked]>
> Large corporations also deal with the regional cities, PR coverage
> would still be effective and possibly more positive.  I'm not sure
> that sponsors would take the location into too much account but
> may be influenced by a lower spend.  It is an outreach geasture
> that may attract interest and additional participation.

If the IETF's goal for meetings was to attract the press or general public,
that might be a valid point; AFAIK, it is not.

A sponsor might find that hotels and meeting rooms may be cheaper in a
smaller city, but that has to be balanced against the cost of attendees'
flights, availability of venues, and other suitability factors.

> No, that is the perception that is often quoted and the reason
> given but is not always fact.  I would normally travel less than
> most people working in a captial city.

During the meeting, that might be true, but the concern is getting _to and
from_ said city.  Unless the meeting is held in SJ or DC, it's reasonable to
assume that 99% of regular attendees are from out of town.

Most major world cities are airline hubs with nonstop international flights;
that means most attendees can get there in one hop and the remainder can
usually get there in two.  For a small city, you are automatically adding
another flight to nearly all attendees, and typical airline pricing means
flying to a "small" city will double (or more) the cost of tickets.

And that's assuming that city even has enough air service to meet the sudden
demand; there are places in the US with 100k+ residents that have 150
seats/day (or less) of air service -- assuming they have an airport at all.
In such cases, nearly all attendees would end up flying to a major city and
then drive down, adding two days to the trip.

> The benefit would be those with sub-standard connections would
> have the opportunity to participate where otherwise they might
> not have the opportunity.

Only for those people actually living in that small city, which not
statistically likely to include any IETF members other than those employed
by the sponsor.

However, those IETF members who cannot attend (particularly since you've
increased the cost of doing so) might not be able to participate if the
venue doesn't have sufficient bandwidth to support streaming the meeting.

> It would also assist with focusing on the issue of increasing
> broadband uptake and opportunities.  It would certainly be a
> good PR exercise.

It's not the goal of IETF meetings to do PR exercises, nor would one week of
demand be enough to convince the local telco or regulators that increased
deployment of broadband is necessary.

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin

---

From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 08:18:03 +1100

Comments inline as appropriate.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 5:33 AM
|> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'John C Klensin';
|> 'IETF Discussion'
|> Subject: Re: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!
|>
|> Thus spake"Dassa" <[email-masked]>
|> > |> -What kind of small city of such population has a large corporation
|> > |> willing to sponsor an IETF event?
|> > |> -How does making a big event take place in a small town help
|> > |> attendance?
|> >
|> > Large corporations also deal with the regional cities, PR coverage
|> > would still be effective and possibly more positive.  I'm not sure
|> > that sponsors would take the location into too much account but may be
|> > influenced by a lower spend.  It is an outreach gesture that may
|> > attract interest and additional participation.
|>
|> If the IETF's goal for meetings was to attract the press or
|> general public, that might be a valid point; AFAIK, it is not.

A subsidiary goal would always be to attract press if participation is to be
encouraged.  Building up knowledge of the IETF within the Internet using
general public is also worthwhile.  If more people knew of the IETF and the
work it accomplishes then they would be less inclined to consume
sub-standard offerings and have a clue when it comes to making purchase
decisions.

|> A sponsor might find that hotels and meeting rooms may be
|> cheaper in a smaller city, but that has to be balanced
|> against the cost of attendees'
|> flights, availability of venues, and other suitability factors.

Certainly true.

|> > |> As for a couple of your propositions:
|> > |>
|> > |> -People usually get paid less outside of large cities because the
|> > |> cost of living is less so I don't see how that has any bearing,
|> > |> other than forcing everyone, including people living in other small
|> > |> towns to travel extra, and certainly guaranteeing that more people
|> > |> have to travel rather than less.
|> >
|> > No, that is the perception that is often quoted and the reason given
|> > but is not always fact.  I would normally travel less than most people
|> > working in a capital city.
|>
|> During the meeting, that might be true, but the concern is
|> getting _to and from_ said city.  Unless the meeting is held
|> in SJ or DC, it's reasonable to assume that 99% of regular
|> attendees are from out of town.

If we accept that as a given and ignore the reasons for the statistic, why
hold meetings elsewhere?  What is the motivation for holding meetings in
countries other than the States or other cities within the States?

|> Most major world cities are airline hubs with nonstop
|> international flights; that means most attendees can get
|> there in one hop and the remainder can usually get there in
|> two.  For a small city, you are automatically adding another
|> flight to nearly all attendees, and typical airline pricing
|> means flying to a "small" city will double (or more) the
|> cost of tickets.

I don't understand how adding another hours flight doubles the cost of a
ticket.  Either the main flights are very cheap or some places have
extremely expensive internal travel. But a valid point.  I will have to look
into ticket pricing and see if this claim is justified.  If it is, it means
the overall expenses no matter where the location would most likely end up
being similar.

|> And that's assuming that city even has enough air service to
|> meet the sudden demand; there are places in the US with
|> 100k+ residents that have 150 seats/day (or less) of air
|> service -- assuming they have an airport at all.
|> In such cases, nearly all attendees would end up flying to a
|> major city and then drive down, adding two days to the trip.

Careful consideration would have to be given to any touted location to
ensure facilities could handle the demand.  Even major airports can have
issues with an unexpected increase in demand.

|> > The benefit would be those with sub-standard connections would have
|> > the opportunity to participate where otherwise they might not have the
|> > opportunity.
|>
|> Only for those people actually living in that small city,
|> which not statistically likely to include any IETF members
|> other than those employed by the sponsor.

I would be thinking those within the region, not just the host city would be
more likely to make the short trip to attend.  A lot of people are more
willing to travel within their own country than overseas.

|> However, those IETF members who cannot attend (particularly
|> since you've increased the cost of doing so) might not be
|> able to participate if the venue doesn't have sufficient
|> bandwidth to support streaming the meeting.

I would think other savings would offset any increases in travel costs so
the overall cost for attendance would be similar.  As mentioned previously,
even regional cities usually have sufficient bandwidth at the city centre to
meet any demands of an IETF conference.  Cities without the needed
facilities would obviously not be considered.

|> > It would also assist with focusing on the issue of increasing
|> > broadband uptake and opportunities.  It would certainly be a good PR
|> > exercise.
|>
|> It's not the goal of IETF meetings to do PR exercises, nor
|> would one week of demand be enough to convince the local
|> telco or regulators that increased deployment of broadband
|> is necessary.

You would be surprised by what can be done to motivate a telco. ;)  Such a
meeting in itself would only be used as a catalyst.  I do consider PR is one
of the goals of the IETF, I may be mistaken but I certainly hope not.  It
would not be a high priority but it would certainly be within the scope of
the IETF.  Considering sponsorship and the like it is fundamental.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 00:16:01 +0100

> flights, availability of venues, and other suitability factors.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of these factors. As far as 
I can tell, this doesn't happen (at least not explicitly). It looks to 
me that meeting venue selection is by and large dictated by previous 
experience and assumptions. (And in many instances by what's 
cheapest/easiest for "the organization".)

> Most major world cities are airline hubs with nonstop international 

Assumption. For instance, in Europe the cities are much closer 
together, so medium-sized cities don't necessarily have an airport 
(either at all or one with intercontinental flights). However, we do 
have good railroads so generally, this isn't much of a problem. (For 
instance, the entire province of South Holland, with the cities The 
Hague and Rotterdam in it, has 3.4 million inhabitants but only a tiny 
1 runway civilian airport. But with the train you're at Schiphol 
(Amsterdam) airport in 30 - 45 minutes.)

> venue doesn't have sufficient bandwidth to support streaming the 

Bandwidth is a non-issue. Any place in the developed world that's big 
enough has fiber or is close enough to fiber for a microwave hop.

There are many alternatives for the current way IETF meetings are 
organized. For instance, the summer meeting could be done at a 
university. The bigger ones should have enough space. That would 
probably be very cheap. Off-season tourist spots are less radical but 
also interesting.

But the question is: what are we trying to optimize for?