Subject: A proposed experiment in narrative minutes of IESG meetings

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:19:34 +0200

The IESG is interested in carrrying out an experiment to publish
narrative minutes for IESG meetings as well as the regular minutes
of decisions taken.

Currently the IESG minutes are a formal record of decisions taken
and (like the agenda) are generated semi-automatically by the
secretariat. This is a well-oiled process that we don't want to
disturb. However, the community clearly would like more information
about the way the IESG reaches its decisions, beyond the record
of comments on each document that is stored in the I-D tracker.

We propose that, for an initial period of 6 months, a member of
the community will be added to regular IESG meetings as a "recording
secretary" who will write narrative minutes of the discussions,
which will be posted publicly after IESG review for accuracy.
(As always, personnel discussions will need to remain private
or be minuted with great care.)

The IESG welcomes comments on this proposal, to [email-masked]
or [email-masked] as appropriate. If the community seems to be
in favour of this experiment, we will soon call for volunteers
and pick one person to act for the initial six months. After
six months, we will ask the community whether the results
justify continuing the effort. The main question will be whether
the community is getting useful extra information.

(Thanks to Spencer Dawkins for triggering this idea.)

    Brian for the IESG

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:52:50 -0700

> secretary" who will write narrative minutes of the discussions,
...
> The IESG welcomes comments on this proposal

Bold, interesting and encouraging.

-- 
 
   d/

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:08:45 +0200

> which will be posted publicly after IESG review for accuracy.

Sounds useful to me.  How about actually recording the discussion too?
And publishing them as OGG or MP3.  Editing out personnel discussion
would still be possible.  All for the sake of transparency and
accountability.

Regards,
Simon

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:13:27 -0400

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:08:45 +0200
> would still be possible.  All for the sake of transparency and

My experience is that recordings tend to shut some people up. Plus, if they exist, they
are subject to subpoena.

> Simon

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:37:00 -0700

Brian,

>the community is getting useful extra information.

I think this is an excellent idea!  Please proceed with it.

Thanks,
Bob

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:37:14 +0200

"Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]> writes:

> My experience is that recordings tend to shut some people up.

My experience is that recordings tend to make people focus on facts,
rather than trying to win a discussion or furthering their own agenda.
If the IESG meetings are intended as service to the community, from
experts, that seem to be a good thing.

> Plus, if they exist, they are subject to subpoena.

Is that a problem?  Not purely a rhetorical question.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Steve Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:22:29 -0700

I think that this is a great idea, Brian.  Further insight into the
decision making process of the IESG, I believe, will benefit everyone
involved.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:10:00 -0400

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> writes:

    Simon> Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> writes:
    >> the community will be added to regular IESG meetings as a
    >> "recording secretary" who will write narrative minutes of the
    >> discussions, which will be posted publicly after IESG review
    >> for accuracy.

    Simon> Sounds useful to me.  How about actually recording the
    Simon> discussion too?  And publishing them as OGG or MP3.
    Simon> Editing out personnel discussion would still be possible.
    Simon> All for the sake of transparency and accountability.

    Simon> Regards, Simon
I think doing this on a regular basis would be too time consuming to
edit.  However I think it would actually be useful to the community,
to those considering serving on the IESG etc to record one telechat a
year or so and edit out the confidential bits.  I certainly know I had
no idea what to expect when I called into my first telechat.

--Sam

---

From: Steve Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:22:32 -0700

Perhaps requiring less effort and being just as useful would be having
volunteers dictate the written narrative minutes and make them
available as OGG or MP3?

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:35:39 +0200

>> no idea what to expect when I called into my first telechat.

You can't do a text search on MP3s, listening is slower than reading  
and language issues tend to be tougher with spoken language than they  
are with written language.

An advantage would be that spoken language conveys sarcasm better.  :-)

And that people don't end their point by repeating everything the  
previous speaker said.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 01:10:07 +0200

> are with written language.

Making audio recording available doesn't prevent also having a written
version of the same discussion.  Perhaps I didn't say it, but I
believe narrative minutes of IESG meetings was a splendid idea.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:25:18 -0400

>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Miller <[email-masked]> writes:

    Steve> Perhaps requiring less effort and being just as useful
    Steve> would be having volunteers dictate the written narrative
    Steve> minutes and make them available as OGG or MP3?

I don't think this would be just as useful.  I think there's a lot you
can get out of an actual recording of a call you cannot get from
IETF-style minutes.

I'm particularly thinking of issues of style and flow--issues
necessary to understand a culture and organization but not to
understand specific decisions.

--Sam

---

From: Sandy Wills <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:33:05 -0400

Marshall Eubanks wrote (talking about recording IESG meetings):
> 
> My experience is that recordings tend to shut some people up...
> 

Jumping in with both feet here:

   I have never been to an IETF or IESG meeting, but I have seen 
countless examples of this.  Marshall is correct.
   On the other hand, I have found it to be a pretty firm rule that the 
things that don't get said are things that shouldn't have been said in 
the first place.
   In other words, the speakers at these meetings are _already_ aware 
that they are publicly speaking and making decisions as representatives 
of a group.  If someone in such a position is only willing to say 
something if he (she) knows he'll never get called on his words, then 
his words don't have much value anyway.

(I spent 20 years in the military.  The most direct way to find out if a 
superior will admit later having given a particular order, is to ask for 
it in writing with signature.  You are bluntly telling him -in front of 
all whithin hearing- that you don't trust him to take responsibility if 
there's no evidence.  If the superior refuses, then you -and everyone in 
hearing- know you were right to challenge him; he'll claim Alzheimer's 
later.)

Directed towards the IESG:
    Recording meetings, and publishing those recordings, may be a 
hassle, but it answers all questions about the integrity of the 
decision-making process.  There may still be questions about knowledge 
and wisdom, but you put to rest all questions about integrity.  Refusing 
to record (for whatever reason*), after having been asked (for whatever 
reason) by the people you represent, says something rather different.

<sarcasm>
* Perhaps the disk space required is too expensive?
</sarcasm>

 > ...Plus, if they exist, they are subject to subpoena.

I don't understand this comment.  How is this bad?  Again, these are our 
public representatives, chosen for their knowledge, experience, and 
integrity.  How can the possibility of being held to their words 
possibly be bad?

---

From: Clint Chaplin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:41:36 -0700

How far in advance are the locations of IETF meetings determined?  Is
there any way to find out what the possible candidates are?

I'm having to budget travel for the next year, and knowing where IETF
65 will be held would help me a lot.
-- 
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Wireless Security Technologist
Wireless Standards Manager

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:35:23 -0500

Clint

I hope you get an answer to this!

>65 will be held would help me a lot.

cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:50:16 -0700 (PDT)

Anyone want to bet on Minneapolis - Its March after all.

Actually I am starting to grow fond of the hotel there.
Bill

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:59:00 -0400

> I think this is an excellent idea!  Please proceed with it.

Agree

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:59:18 -0400

> Anyone want to bet on Minneapolis - Its March after all.

Sounds good to me.

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 01:07:57 -0400

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:33:05 -0400
> his words don't have much value anyway.

But my understanding is that IESG meetings are not open, so they are not 
speaking publicly now.

This gets back to the ability to subpoena such recordings. If sensitive issues 
are going to be discussed, then
in practice they can't be recorded, since you can't really be sure what will happen to
the recordings. (The person doing the recording could be met by a process server as he or 
she sits down to edit them, for example.)

So,in practice, either the IESG will have to have all meetings be open, or have 
some meetings or parts of meetings not recorded. My experience with corporate boards makes
me suspect that in the latter case a two tier meeting structure might evolve, with 
the real business being conducted in "executive session."

I am neutral about the recording issue; I am just trying to point
out some implications.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:23:23 +0300

> And that people don't end their point by repeating everything the  
I like textual minutes better, too. Brian's suggestion seems good
to me.

--Jari

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:35:37 +0200

> Is that a problem?  Not purely a rhetorical question.

The two points are linked. The IESG gets to make some decisions about
people. "X is a lousy WG chair, but Y is the only plausible replacement,
and she works for Z so would have a commercial interest in the
outcome. So we have to put up with X." I think people wouldn't say that
on a call that was being recorded for posterity, precisely because it might
be sub poenaed.

Whereas the narrative minutes would say
"The IESG discussed the Foobar WG and agreed with the AD's proposal to
continue with the current WG chair."

     Brian

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:56:04 +0200

> continue with the current WG chair."

The logical conclusion to that problem is to edit out those parts of
the recording before making it public.  Editing audio is roughly as
difficult as writing down narrative minutes these days.  That
filtering and editing process is required when writing minutes too, so
it is not like an entirely new process is required.  Listeners would
have to listen to the recording and read the minutes to get the
complete publicly available information.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:59:18 +0200

Clint,

Firstly, please note that this is now part of the IETF Administrative
Ditrector's responsibility. I've put him on copy.

Second, we all agree that locations should be chosen and announced
as early possible.

Third, there is a very high probability that IETF65 will be at a
US location and we have a host in view - but until that is fully
settled I don't think we can say in public.  I'm sure Ray will tell
us as soon as possible.

     Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:10:58 -0400

> settled I don't think we can say in public.  I'm sure Ray will

Brian and Ray,

Is it reasonable for us to hope that, as things settle down over
time, we can reasonably expect to get to the "meeting times and
locations known 18 months to two years out" status that has been
the target for some years?  Or, to put it differently, without
any unreasonable expectations about how quickly it is possible
to get back onto that basis, is it still the target and do you
consider that target plausible?

    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:14:22 +0200

> complete publicly available information.

I'm sorry, I *really* don't think this would be practical. Editing written
notes is much easier and quicker then editing audio, and can be done
anywhere the scribe's laptop can be opened.

This would be one bridge too far for me.

     Brian

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:34:46 -0500

There are a couple of helpful data points for many attendees. In my 
own case, knowing there are two North American meetings planned, or 
only one, in a given year tells me a lot about budgeting long before a 
specific location is announced.

Spencer

From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:23:04 -0400

--On Friday, 15 July, 2005 10:35 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> "The IESG discussed the Foobar WG and agreed with the AD's
> proposal to continue with the current WG chair."

Brian,

As part of the experiment, and in consultation with counsel if
needed, I would hope that the narrative minutes would push that
a bit harder, e.g., to

	"The IESG discussed management issues with the Foobar WG
	and agreed with the AD's proposal to monitor the
	situation more intensely and continue with the current
	WG chair."

Without getting into the personnel-related reasons for the
decision, that signals to the community that the AD, and the
IESG, are aware that there is a problem and plan to take some
additional measures to cope with it.   We need, I think, to know
that much; we don't need to know the details of why a different
course was not chosen.

Of course, at the risk of conflating threads, I would hope that,
any time a "X is lousy but there is no possible replacement"
situation arises, the cognizant body would ask itself and, to
the extent feasible, the relevant community, the meta question
of whether it is appropriate to continue the work if leadership
depth and interest is that shallow.  The answer to that question
may often be "yes" but it seems, IMO, that it is important that
it be asked.

It is precisely because the above concerns can be raised and
examined in this context --and cannot in the context of
decision-record minutes-- that causes me to think this
experiment is a wonderful idea.  I thank you and your IESG
colleagues for being willing to propose and consider it.

    john

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:04:40 +0200

> anywhere the scribe's laptop can be opened.

It depends on the scribe I guess.  I would expect anyone who wanted to
do a decent job as a scribe would record the discussion and go over it
once or twice anyway.

But having one recording a year, like Sam suggested, would indeed be
useful too.  As noted, however, it would not have any significant
technical use, except as an introduction to the culture in IESG.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:27:45 +0200

My expectation is that we'll stick to the pattern of two N American
meetings plus one in another region - but meeting planning is an art,
not a science.

    Brian

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> There are a couple of helpful data points for many attendees. In my own 
> case, knowing there are two North American meetings planned, or only 
> one, in a given year tells me a lot about budgeting long before a

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:35:44 -0400

> meetings plus one in another region - but meeting planning is an art,

I like the deterministic formula based on the number of drafts
written.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:01:30 -0500

Dear IESG,

I sent a private "thank you" to Brian replying to his original note, 
but wanted to say so in public.

Thank you.

Spencer

From: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:53:44 +0200

--On torsdag, juli 14, 2005 21:33:05 -0400 Sandy Wills <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

>     Recording meetings, and publishing those recordings, may be a hassle,
> but it answers all questions about the integrity of the decision-making
> process.  There may still be questions about knowledge and wisdom, but
> you put to rest all questions about integrity.  Refusing to record (for
> whatever reason*), after having been asked (for whatever reason) by the
> people you represent, says something rather different.

I'm sorry to be this blunt, but...

   Nonsense.

Anyone who has watched the on-stage, recorded, extremely-public board 
meetings of ICANN and has also watched the multitude of conspiracy theories 
about the ICANN board knows that conspiracy theorists will take the 
existence of a recording as proof that the REAL conspiracy was going on 
somewhere else, and what was recorded was an orchestrated public charade.

Been there, done that, no cigar.

                           Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:20:36 +0200

> I like the deterministic formula based on the number of drafts

I don't think it can be fully deterministic. We might want to
*encourage*  engineers in a particular region or country to participate
(rather than, for example, indulging in national or regional
standardization).

    Brian

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 06:55:55 -0700 (PDT)

> somewhere else, and what was recorded was an orchestrated public charade.

You are, of course, correct. But guess what: This is one where the conspiracy
theorists are actually partly right. They know good and well that there are in
fact plenty of private conversations and off the record exchanges going on
behind the scenes. There have to be.

Like it or not, the members any small group charged with making important
decisions need to be able to communicate off the record.

Having been on the IESG, I can tell you that private communication with other
IESG members is very common, if only because bothering the entire IESG with
every small issue that comes up would be a huge time waster for the group as
whole. So any notion that recording IESG meetings will capture the process in
its entirety is simply silly.

As for atually recording the meetings, I'm pretty ambivalent about that. For
one thing, I think people are seriously underestimating the amount of time  and
effort that would be needed to make this work. And for another, I don't think
it improves transparency nearly as much as people think it will. OTOH, the
added insight it would provide to general IETF participants about how the IESG
operates would be a very good thing. Perhaps the right thing to do is to record
1-2 meetings a year, as someone else suggested.

> Been there, done that, no cigar.

Anyone with corporate board experience has been there as well. Or school board
experience. Or, for that matter, corridor conversations at IETF meetings.
There's certainly no shortage of examples.

				Ned

---

From: "Ray Pelletier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:09:48 -0400

John,

The short answer is "Yes" - identifying meeting locations
and times 18 to 24 months out is a plausible target.

Site ID is less a problem than Sponsor commitment, but the
answer remains "Yes".

Ray

Is it reasonable for us to hope that, as things settle down
over time, we can reasonably expect to get to the "meeting
times and locations known 18 months to two years out"
status that has been the target for some years? Or, to put
it differently, without any unreasonable expectations about
how quickly it is possible to get back onto that basis, is
it still the target and do you consider that target
plausible?

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:10:58 -0400
 John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Second, we all agree that locations should be chosen
> and
> > announced
> > as early possible.
> > 
> > Third, there is a very high probability that IETF65
> will be at
> > a
> > US location and we have a host in view - but until that
> is
> > fully
> > settled I don't think we can say in public.  I'm sure
> Ray will
> > tell
> > us as soon as possible.
> 
> Brian and Ray,
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:09:16 -0700

> consider that target plausible?

"back" onto that basis?

As a matter of practise, there has never been any attempt to schedule venues 
18-24 months out.  Instead, there has been a reliance on finding meeting 
hosts. This has ensured that early venue selection was not possible.

(Some folks might remember that roughly 10 years ago, Marshall and I proposed 
scheme that would have chosen a standard site if no host is selected by the 
cutoff.)

As noted in the current thread, early site selection permits attendee 
budgeting.  From the IETF side, it permits serious negotiating for site terms 
and operational efficiencies when a previous site is re-used.  Minneapolis has 
been a useful demonstration of this latter point, I think.

By placing a priority on having hosts and/or on selecting venues to encourage 
local Internet development, we place meeting operational and cost benefits as 
secondary priorities.

-- 
 
   d/

  Dave Crocker

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:19:53 +0200

--On tirsdag, juli 19, 2005 07:09:16 -0700 Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> budgeting.  From the IETF side, it permits serious negotiating for site
> terms and operational efficiencies when a previous site is re-used.
> Minneapolis has been a useful demonstration of this latter point, I think.

Since nobody but Foretec has seen the Minneapolis contracts, we have no 
idea whether that's true or not.

I've had it argued at me that a hotel that believes it "owns" the event is 
actually harder to negotiate with than one that believes that there are 
alternatives.

                           Harald

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:25:42 -0700

>  actually harder to negotiate with than one that believes that there are

1. When the negotiation is done at what is effectively the last minute, the one 
thing that is certain is that the customer has really lousy negotiating 
position.

2. When the negotiation is done early enough to afford a legitimate ability to 
choose a different site, then the customer's leverage is retained.  The venue 
managers have an incentive to encourage return by giving good terms, rather than 
by pretending they have monopolistic control over the negotiation.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:19:56 -0400

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 06:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
> decisions need to be able to communicate off the record.

Indeed. And if you are foolish enough to try and stop it,
it will just go underground.

> 1-2 meetings a year, as someone else suggested.

I agree about the time required to process the recordings. Someone _who is knowledgeable
about IESG sensitivities_ would have to listen to every word and mark edits, someone would have to 
edit the recording into some sort of package, the IESG would probably want to review it, and it
would have to be posted. This would chew up a lot of time, including a fair amount of IESG time.

Here is an alternate suggestion :

The IESG could have open meetings at selected IETF
meetings. Since the infrastructure is already there, these could be
webcast and recorded at no additional cost, except to everyone's already 
overburdened schedules (and a little for media and disk space). Since those meetings would
be open, the recordings would not need to be edited. And, those who really are interested could
attend in person, and maybe even ask questions.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: "Brett Thorson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:38:03 -0400 (EDT)

I have to say that every time we went back to Minneapolis, they got
friendlier.  It also made our job easier because they knew what we needed,
and it wasn't a shock to them.  Having extra tables in the common areas,
allowing us to wire up the bar, asking them to turn off their wireless,
and advanced access to rooms in the middle of the night were all things
they didn't have to be talked into.  The _knew_ having IETF access points
in the bar meant extra sales.

The IETF meetings are quirky.  No doubt about it.  They move a lot too, so
running into the "ownership" thing with IETF isn't too dangerous.  Most of
the hotels we went to usually were trying to get us to come back.

The largest problem with a 2 year proposal is getting the host.  It was
easy back in the day when a location could be chosen, and then a host was
happy just to host it.  Now the host has some pretty significant costs in
relation to bottom line profits.  So it makes sense that the host needs to
be involved with that selection.

Making sure that the host is around, solvent, and willing to "make the
bits fly" at show time is a consideration.  (That and if they agree to it
2 years in advance, they then have 6 meetings to attend and realize it may
not be something they really want to do and back out!)

Minneapolis was great though.  They knew us, we knew them, we all liked
each other, and it was a good situation.

Keep up the good work IETF!

--Brett Thorson

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:32:30 +0200

On 19-jul-2005, at 16:19, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>> From the IETF side, it permits serious negotiating for site

> Since nobody but Foretec has seen the Minneapolis contracts, we  
> have no idea whether that's true or not.

Any particular reason for this? A general lack of nosiness doesn't  
seem a likely reason, so there must be more to it.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:53:01 +0200

There is a new I-D trying to fix what we require for the meetings .... Is
still preliminary and I will like to have an informal meeting with the
interested people which may have some expertise on this topic in Paris. So
if you're interested let me know !

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection
-criteria-00.txt

My experience setting up meetings and conferences shows that most of the
time, unless you don't fix the venue ahead 18 months or even more, the
chances to have a good venue and price are reduced very quickly (I mean less
choices, worst price and conditions in general).

So, I will say that is extremely important to plan as much ahead as
possible, and if it can be done even 2 years up-front, much better than just
18 months. Is not only a question of who is attending, but also who is
organizing and hosting.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
> Organización: Brandenburg InternetWorking
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:09:16 -0700
> Para: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
> CC: <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Meeting Locations
> 
> 
> 

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

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Information available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

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: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:32:31 -0400

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> writes:

    Jeffrey> On Thursday, July 14, 2005 08:50:16 PM -0700

    >> Anyone want to bet on Minneapolis - Its March after all.

    Jeffrey> Sounds good to me.

Me too.

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:02:56 -0400 (EDT)

How about Daytona Beach?

>     Jeffrey> Sounds good to me.

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:12:00 +0200

Marshall Eubanks wrote:
...

> attend in person, and maybe even ask questions.

Marshall,

I'm not trying to make difficulties here, but the IESG regular meetings
are almost robotically driven by the agenda (for those who don't know,
it's posted in advance at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/agenda.html) and we all
sit at our computers wearing headsets, often updating our ballots or other
information in the I-D tracker as we speak. It's truly hard to see how such
a meeting can be held as an open meeting.

    Brian

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:46:09 -0400

Sounds like a great idea.  I'm looking forward to additional detail
about how decisions are reached as well as more clarity in the
description of those decisions.

Thanks, Brian...

- Ralph