Subject: Re: [IAOC] Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 19:15:27 -0400

Hi,

Comments in-line —

On 14 Apr 2017, at 5:06, Vinayak Hegde wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:09 AM, IAOC Chair <[email-masked]> 
> wrote:
>> On March 31, 2017, we put out a request for input on experiences with 
>> travel to the recent IETF meeting in the US, and solicited 
>> information pertinent to plans to attend IETF meetings within or 
>> outside the US in the coming years.  We have had over 350 responses 
>> to the questionnaire, and we appreciate each and every one of them!   
>> We did not gather the data in such a way for it to reflect a 
>> representative sample of the IETF community, or of potential meeting 
>> attendees. But we did gain insights from those who responded that we 
>> did not have before.
>
> Can the data be put out in an anonymized fashion without revealing PII
> (such as name or email) ? The data has been interpreted for the
> community but it might be useful for the community to look at the data
> gathered as well. It might help change opinions or people on the fence
> or people to rethink their positions.

The IAOC reviewed this again last week.  The short answer is:  no there 
isn’t a way to put out more information from the survey.  We gathered 
the information with the offer of anonymity, and we don’t believe it 
would be right to re-interpret that after the fact.

>
>> Over 40% of the respondents said they had attended 20 or more IETF 
>> meetings, and over 50% of them said they were authors of active 
>> working group documents.  Slightly more than 40% stated US residency, 
>> and just less than 60% said they were not US-resident.
>
> Since the US-meeting disproportionately affects those traveling to the
> US, I think that might be an axis against which data needs to be
> interpreted. The burden on many US citizens would be (possibly) extra
> travel in case the meeting is not located nearby (such as in Canada or
> Mexico).
>
> Also many nationalities might not need to apply for US visa or face
> lesser stringent barriers to entry. So knowing the country of
> citizenship might be useful in the data.
>
>> The general comments on meeting in the US played along the same lines 
>> as has been shared on the IETF discussion list:  people are variously 
>> for moving all meetings out of the US, or adamantly against, or 
>> somewhere in between, each position supported by good reasons.
>
> Again might be useful to see the data.
>
>> The IAOC is continuing to gather data on travel to the US, concerns 
>> about traveling outside of it, and what alternatives are possible for 
>> IETF 102.  Our focus is currently on whether holding IETF 102 in San 
>> Francisco is the best option to meet the needs of IETF work, 
>> recognizing that we cannot predict the future.  While it may take 
>> several weeks to allow for review and negotiation of any alternatives 
>> (if applicable), we are moving as quickly as possible because we 
>> realize that people will need time to plan their travel.
>
> Is there a rough timeline for this ?

The rough timeline is still “several weeks”, I’m afraid.  It is 
gated not only on our choices, but the time it takes to get information 
about potentially-viable sites, and negotiate a contract (if an 
alternate site seems reasonable).   Speaking for myself only, I would 
like to have the question settled not later than a year before the 
scheduled meeting.   That is only sensible, in terms of finding credible 
alternative sites, and in terms of giving prospective attendees 
sufficient advance notice to be able to make their own plans.

Thanks,
Leslie.

> -- Vinayak

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------