Subject: Re: IETF 62

From: "Ben Crosby" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:46:36 -0500

Hear hear!

I debated posting after the fingerprint thread, and then again after the Cancun comment. Sam's email accurately sums up my own view. 

Further, as the host of IETF61, we explored at least four possible venues, one of which was Ottawa - too bloody awkward to get to, since there are very few direct flights, and even fewer venues big enough to support the meeting - and another was Florida, a WDW Conference hotel. This venue was ultimately rejected for a few reasons, one of which was the implications of "work, not play". DC was ultimately selected as a good "business" town, and I hope it will be a succesful meeting. 

Ta,
Ben. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sun Sep 19 19:28:06 2004
Subject: Re: IETF 62

Two things brought up in this thread disturb me.  First, there seems
to be the idea that we should be choosing where IETFs are held for
political purposes--to make statements for or against certain
governments.  I'm not quite sure this was said or implied, but if it
was, I'm made a bit uncomfortable by it.      

I certainly understand we should carefully consider situations that
make people unable or unwilling to attend an IETF.  Maximizing the
number of active (and potentially active) participants who can make it
to a meeting is a valid thing to consider.  If the political policies
of a country make it hard to get the people we need in that country
then we should go there less frequently or not at all.  Note that one
way these policies can make it hard for us to get the people we need
in a particular country is for these people to be unwilling to travel
to that country.  

However in similar situations (not all of them within the IETF
context) I've seen the desire to avoid a particular country go beyond
what is justified by a desire to make the conference accessible.  In
some cases it seemed to venture into the realm of political statement.
The conference seemed to want to say that they were taking a stand
against the policies of a country.  That is dangerous: getting
involved in politics may compromise our ability to construct the best
Internet we can.  There may be some cases where we must get involved
in politics; I'm skeptical that any involve conference venue
selection.  Even worse, it sometimes seems like the desire is to go
beyond a statement and actually punish countries by not going that.
That's just stupid; we end up punishing our own attendees from those
countries, not the countries themselves.

Again, I'm not sure I see this problem in this thread.  It's not
entirely clear what peoples' motivations are.  I know that I feel more
comfortable with the outcomes of discussions based on fair
distribution of travel and convenience of participants than I do with
the outcomes of discussions based on fingerprinting, rules and who is
involved in a particular country's decision making process.  This is
true even when the discussions produce identical results; the process
matters.

Secondly, I'm concerned that people are proposing optimizing for
pleasant climate and good vacation spots.  I come to the IETF to get
work done; I'd rather be at meetings where the other participants have
the same goal.  We should be somewhat careful of optimizing for
enjoyable location.  I'd rather see us optimize for who can attend and
cost.

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

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

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:12:17 +1000

Hi Ben and Sam,

Ben Crosby wrote:
> Hear hear!
> 
> I debated posting after the fingerprint thread, and then again after the Cancun
 > comment. Sam's email accurately sums up my own view.
> 
> Further, as the host of IETF61, we explored at least four possible venues,
 > one of which was Ottawa - too bloody awkward to get to, since there 
are very
 > few direct flights, and even fewer venues big enough to support the 
meeting -
 > and another was Florida, a WDW Conference hotel. This venue was 
ultimately
 > rejected for a few reasons, one of which was the implications of
> "work, not play".  DC was ultimately selected as a good "business" town, and I
 > hope it will be a succesful meeting.

It's worth realizing that fingerprinting is a current issue
(and likely a future one) which makes people uncomfortable
and may discourage people from making their first (or next)
visit to IETF, if it's in the 'States.

Considering the high level RIPE/APNIC activity with IPv6, it's
certainly worth minimizing some of the barriers to new participants
in coming to IETF.

Personally, I believe that if I enter a country as its guest, I subject
myself to their rules and security tests.  It doesn't mean I have to
like being fingerprinted though.

I know people for whom this dislike is a serious disincentive to attend.
If we continue to have the high proportion of events scheduled (by
default) in the USA, we may see the variety of international attendees
diminish.

When there have been so few (2 I think) IETFs in Canada it seems a shame
to default to North America == USA and just ignore major cities such as 
Montreal or Toronto, because they're an hour or so further to fly.
As far as I can see, Minneapolis isn't a direct destination for all the
major airlines either.

Like it or not IETF isn't a political organization, but a politically
important one.  If we're choosing locations, sometimes the reason has to 
be political (I'm not talking about going to Canada here).
Seoul IETF apparently made good business sense. It made even better
political sense, since it encouraged government and business figures in
Korea to support IPv6.

If we're prepared to ignore political issues then we may miss such
opportunities for positive outcomes for IETF.

My current opinion only,

Greg Daley

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:36:03 +0200

Hi,

I can follow and understand a lot of the discussions about not getting 
involved into political issues, but I cannot follow the discussion about 
not going to nice place, since people could get attracted by the 
surroundings and not the IETF.

First, people are old enough to focus on their work at the IETF meeting. 
Saying "work, not play" implies "people aren't able to focus on their work" 
and thus we are going back to what people would like to avoid: political 
issues. Second, it is always nice to get outside during IETF breaks and 
having lunch/dinner/any other break in a nice area.

Anyway, I think the Cancun proposal is more a nice hint than a serious 
proposals.

Many thanks to Alcatel for hosting the upcoming IETF and I'm looking 
forward to Washington.

Regards,

  Martin

--On Sonntag, 19. September 2004 19:46 Uhr -0500 Ben Crosby 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

| Hear hear!
|
| I debated posting after the fingerprint thread, and then again after the
| Cancun comment. Sam's email accurately sums up my own view.
|
| Further, as the host of IETF61, we explored at least four possible
| venues, one of which was Ottawa - too bloody awkward to get to, since
| there are very few direct flights, and even fewer venues big enough to
| support the meeting - and another was Florida, a WDW Conference hotel.
| This venue was ultimately rejected for a few reasons, one of which was
| the implications of "work, not play". DC was ultimately selected as a
| good "business" town, and I hope it will be a succesful meeting.
|
| Ta,
| Ben.
|
|
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
| To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
| Sent: Sun Sep 19 19:28:06 2004
| Subject: Re: IETF 62
|
| Two things brought up in this thread disturb me.  First, there seems
| to be the idea that we should be choosing where IETFs are held for
| political purposes--to make statements for or against certain
| governments.  I'm not quite sure this was said or implied, but if it
| was, I'm made a bit uncomfortable by it.
|
| I certainly understand we should carefully consider situations that
| make people unable or unwilling to attend an IETF.  Maximizing the
| number of active (and potentially active) participants who can make it
| to a meeting is a valid thing to consider.  If the political policies
| of a country make it hard to get the people we need in that country
| then we should go there less frequently or not at all.  Note that one
| way these policies can make it hard for us to get the people we need
| in a particular country is for these people to be unwilling to travel
| to that country.
|
| However in similar situations (not all of them within the IETF
| context) I've seen the desire to avoid a particular country go beyond
| what is justified by a desire to make the conference accessible.  In
| some cases it seemed to venture into the realm of political statement.
| The conference seemed to want to say that they were taking a stand
| against the policies of a country.  That is dangerous: getting
| involved in politics may compromise our ability to construct the best
| Internet we can.  There may be some cases where we must get involved
| in politics; I'm skeptical that any involve conference venue
| selection.  Even worse, it sometimes seems like the desire is to go
| beyond a statement and actually punish countries by not going that.
| That's just stupid; we end up punishing our own attendees from those
| countries, not the countries themselves.
|
| Again, I'm not sure I see this problem in this thread.  It's not
| entirely clear what peoples' motivations are.  I know that I feel more
| comfortable with the outcomes of discussions based on fair
| distribution of travel and convenience of participants than I do with
| the outcomes of discussions based on fingerprinting, rules and who is
| involved in a particular country's decision making process.  This is
| true even when the discussions produce identical results; the process
| matters.
|
| Secondly, I'm concerned that people are proposing optimizing for
| pleasant climate and good vacation spots.  I come to the IETF to get
| work done; I'd rather be at meetings where the other participants have
| the same goal.  We should be somewhat careful of optimizing for
| enjoyable location.  I'd rather see us optimize for who can attend and
| cost.
|
| _______________________________________________
| Ietf mailing list
| [email-masked]
| https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| Ietf mailing list
| [email-masked]
| https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: jamal <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Sep 2004 08:16:55 -0400

Ben Crosby wrote:

> are very few direct flights,

So Mineapolis (the mother of all IETF venues) is less bloodier to get
to? I am shocked. I would claim Ottawa is more accessible, colder,
cheaper and doesnt have wimpy tunnels - which makes it a perfect choice.

cheers,
jamal

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:24:52 -0400

> cheaper and doesnt have wimpy tunnels - which makes it a perfect 

I think Minneapolis is a terrific venue - the facilities are great,
meals are easy, etc.  I've hosted a meeting in Ottawa, and while it's
also a terrific venue it's not that easy to find facilities that
can accommodate a meeting the size of the IETF.  Toronto or Montreal
would be a better bet in terms of meeting space.

I've been denied travel funds to a location that looked too much like
a holiday spot, so I'm not much of an advocate for basing location
decisions on whether or not I'd enjoy the locale - that can backfire.
We've all heard jokes about the European Travel and Sightseeing
Institute, right?

I used to be heavily involved with Usenix, which has a full-time
meeting coordinator whose job is specifically to find and arrange
meeting venues.  I checked their events page recently and they've
got locations for the annual conference pinned down through 2008.

Melinda

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 05:06:28 -0400 (EDT)

I'll anta up again... Daytona Beach not only has a wide variety of
entertainment for ietf'ers (over 200 pubs at last count), but also an
international airport, and first class convention facilities.

Scott

> got locations for the annual conference pinned down through 2008.

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

---

From: jamal <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Sep 2004 11:05:25 -0400

> would be a better bet in terms of meeting space.

I would agree with the sufficiently large venue - although it could be
done (and there are a lot of things cooking this year in terms of new
conference centres). Toronto or montreal would be better choices from
that perspective.
What suprised me was the "bloody awkward" to get to Ottawa being a
criteria. I thought alcatel has big presence here and would know better.
My contention is it is much more easier to get here than to Mineapolis.

cheers,
jamal

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:36:04 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "jamal" == jamal  <[email-masked]> writes:
    jamal> I would agree with the sufficiently large venue - although it
    jamal> could be done (and there are a lot of things cooking this
    jamal> year in terms of new conference centres). Toronto or montreal
    jamal> would be better choices from that perspective.  What suprised
    jamal> me was the "bloody awkward" to get to Ottawa being a
    jamal> criteria. I thought alcatel has big presence here and would
    jamal> know better.  My contention is it is much more easier to get
    jamal> here than to Mineapolis.

  With the exception that Minneapolis is a NW/KLM hub, and there are
some international flights that land there, Ottawa and Minneapolis are
basically both 1 hour flight from a major hub.

  Ottawa:      Toronto	     (air canada)
	       Chicago	     (united, american)
	       Pittsburgh    (U-scare)
	       Newark	     (Continental)
	       Detroit	     (Northwest)

  Minneapolis: Toronto	     (air canada, NW. 1.5 hours)
	       Chicago
	       Denver
	       St.Louis		(is it still a hub?)
	       Northwest hub

  Also, many of the european airlines fly into Montreal with a dedicated
shuttle to ottawa.

  The only obvious hotel that is right-sized is the westin+congress
centre.  There are other choices, including one corner with four hotels
on it, and enough conference space, but we'd be slightly split up.

  There is a group that is trying to host fall-NANOG/ARIN 2005 in Ottawa.
That's about half the size of IETF, but otherwise has similar
requirements.

- --
]     "Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser" - The Simpson         |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [