Subject: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:06:53 -0400 (EDT)

Harald asks
> I feel some urgency to make sure that we have meeting arrangements in place
> for 2005 - without imperiling our ability to make the best long-term
> choices for the IETF.

the logical path seems to be to ask Foretec to start making arrangements
for next year's meetings - doing so in a way that could be transfered
to another meeting manager if things came to that would be ideal but
may be hard

also

imo it would least disruptive to follow option #3 (combo path)
and try to negotiate a sole source contract with Foretec/CNRI for
what Carl called the clerk function and maybe some other functions
(imo it would be better to outsorce the management of the mailing
lists and their archives to a company in that business)

Scott

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:16:49 +0200

> lists and their archives to a company in that business)

One thing that worries me about the "piecemeal" approach with some 
functions under sole source is that for a long time we've been operating 
with all functions in one body (except for RFC Editor and IANA). There are 
some economies of scale with integrating those functions.

If we follow the combo path, we also commit ourselves to breaking the 
function into multiple pieces - which may discriminate against a solution 
where other suppliers of services may be able to do "the whole thing" more 
effectively than they can do parts of it.

How much is this a problem?

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:00:05 -0400

Hi Scott,

>lists and their archives to a company in that business)

Mailing list management and web hosting (not content) are two obvious 
candidates for separate contracts if we choose to go with a 
multi-part RFP process.  These items are quite independent and 
non-IETF specific.

Meeting planning is another chunk that could be considered 
separately, but the way we do it today has a lot of tie-ins to IETF 
activities -- rules/notices about WG vs. BOF scheduling, proceedings, 
network, terminal rooms, multicast, sponsorship, etc.  So, if we 
outsource the meeting planning separately from the "clerk" function, 
we would have to carefully define the line between the two,  and that 
line may not be quite where it lies inside Foretec today.

Also, even if we somehow outsource a few of the more 
separable/generic tasks independently, there is still a large amount 
of IETF-specific work that needs to be done by someone -- I-D 
handling, supporting the IESG review/approval process, handling IPR 
notices, keeping track of WG charters, maintaining our web content, 
etc.  It would not be easy to outsource these functions to multiple 
groups.  It would require extensive effort to define the interfaces 
between the different functions, and a lot of duplicate work to train 
multiple groups in the details of the IETF processes and culture.

I have some concerns that if we try to break off a few of the simpler 
chunks, the effort of coordinating between those chunks may be larger 
than the benefits that would accrue from allowing competition in the 
mailing list management, web hosting and meeting planning areas.  So, 
this is something we should think about carefully.  A multi-part RFP 
process that allows organizations to submit multi-part bids (i.e.  if 
we run the clerk's office,  we will also do meeting planning for $XXX 
) might give us some insight into whether ecomomies of scale make it 
cheaper to go with a single provider for all services, or if it 
actually works out that it is cheaper/better for some functions to be 
provided by people who specialize in them.

Margaret

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:19:46 -0400

Harald,

Let me try  a different answer from Scott's, with just about the
same conclusion.  

At the risk of being too specific about this, the "meeting
planning" function(s) and the "[standards] secretariat" one(s)
have almost nothing to do with each other --other than, in our
case, some rather important history.   It would be very rare to
find one organization that would be equally skilled at actually
doing both. Creating an opportunity for one organization to
"win" a bid by strength in one area while dragging the other one
along is just looking for trouble.   Now it is still an open
question whether one wants to parse the situation into even more
tasks, such as separating "secretariat" from "mailing lists"
and/or "archiving and web site maintenance", and potentially
different groups.  But those two task areas seem really
different.

To further complicate things, I personally don't think the IETF
has yet figured out enough about what it really wants from the
secretariat part of the function and reached enough consensus on
that to justify any RFP-writing.  In this respect, the material
in The Report seems to me to be inadequate unless the definition
of what the IETF wants from the secretariat is "whatever the
IESG or its leadership decide they want on a given day".  That
definition would, IMO, be bad for the IETF and would call the
intelligence of anyone who would respond to the RFP into
question (even though it would permit the IETF to have a lot of
control). 

Now, if one separates out the tasks and constructs the RFPs and
evaluation process properly, presumably nothing would prevent
one organization from coming in and saying "we actually have all
of these skills, can justify your giving us the whole cluster of
tasks, and can give you a price break if you sign up with us for
more than one of then".   That is actually done fairly routinely
in some settings.  If there are viable candidates, it would give
you what you seem to be looking for below without imposing a
rather strange constraint on combinations of skills.

   john

--On Sunday, 12 September, 2004 16:16 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> and try to negotiate a sole source contract with Foretec/CNRI
>> for what Carl called the clerk function and maybe some other
>> functions (imo it would be better to outsorce the management
>> of the mailing lists and their archives to a company in that
>> business)
> 
> 
> One thing that worries me about the "piecemeal" approach with
> some functions under sole source is that for a long time we've
> been operating with all functions in one body (except for RFC
> Editor and IANA). There are some economies of scale with
> integrating those functions.
> 
> If we follow the combo path, we also commit ourselves to
> breaking the function into multiple pieces - which may
> discriminate against a solution where other suppliers of
> services may be able to do "the whole thing" more effectively
> than they can do parts of it.
>

---

From: "Steve Crocker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:50:30 -0400

A brief comment on one specific aspect of meeting planning...

In broad terms, the planning for a meeting is partionable, rather
cleanly, into two pieces.  One is the "envelope" of arranging for the
hotel, an inventory of large and small meeting rooms, the terminal room,
the external network connectivity, the food and perhaps a few other
things I've left out.  This "envelope" is reasonably constant and
reasonably easy to specify.

The other part of meeting planning is the assignment of WGs, BOFs and
other events to the specific rooms.  This requires intimate knowledge of
the areas and other relationships to avoid scheduling conflicts, work
out priorities and maintain communication with all the relevant people.

I believe the former could be farmed out, if desired, although this gets
a bit complicated because it includes finding sponsors and making
arrangements for appropriate Internet service.  The latter is tied quite
closely, in my opinion, to the year round support of the WGs and IESG.

I don't have an opinion as to whether the envelope part of the meeting
planning *should* be farmed out to a separate organization.  I'm only
commenting here that the tasks divide reasonably cleanly.  That is, to
first order, an IETF meeting needs a plenary room, about ten working
group rooms, a terminal room, and a handful of side rooms for auxiliary
purposes.  That's a spec that can be sent out to hotels and meeting
planners around the world.

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Margaret Wasserman
> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 12:00 PM
> To: scott bradner; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Scott,
> 
> >imo it would least disruptive to follow option #3 (combo 
> path) and try 
> >to negotiate a sole source contract with Foretec/CNRI for what Carl 
> >called the clerk function and maybe some other functions 
> (imo it would 
> >be better to outsorce the management of the mailing lists and their 
> >archives to a company in that business)
>

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:59:14 -0700 (PDT)

Hi John -

> case, some rather important history.   

Agreed, with the addition of Steve Crocker's point about the
meeting agenda being part of what you call the "[standards] secretariat"
and what I termed the "Clerk's Office".

> that to justify any RFP-writing.  

I agree with you.  My personal view is that a better strategy
for that piece is to attempt to negotiate a sole source contract
with CNRI.  I don't think we understand the process (indeed
we probably haven't defined the process enough) to do an RFP.
Just my view, and there are reasonable opinions to the contrary.

> rather strange constraint on combinations of skills.

That's kind of how I wrote the RFP.  Again, just my personal view,
it didn't seem prudent or wise to attempt to change all of our
horses in mid-stream.  Of course, if we'd like to stick with CNRI
with some functions, it is important that we begin a dialogue
with them.  It isn't easy for them since they aren't sure what
the IETF would like to do.

I've seen several comments that the mailing list or web presence
functions seem pretty straightforward to issue an RFI (a request
for information) to see what our options are.  By drawing a
broader brush than just mail or web, I think we could get a
pretty good idea of what kind of support we might get in the
way of good proposals.  That's why I recommended a broader
"network presence" function be considered.

In summary, I outlined three pieces:

1. meeting planning
2. core network
3. clerk's office

We could do sole source procurement on 0-3 of those pieces, or
an RFP on 0-3 of those pieces, or we could pick a different
decomposition.  I don't think you can do both a sole source 
procurement and an RFP on the same piece, though, so that is a 
decision point.  And, there is a bit of urgency to make that
decision since it is hard to move forward during a
transition period.  (I used the word "urgent" instead
of, say, "panic" ... we do have some time to get this right,
but it would be nice to move along with all due deliberate
speed.)

Regards,

Carl

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:39:36 +0200

--On 12. september 2004 12:19 -0400 John C Klensin <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> IESG or its leadership decide they want on a given day".

permit me to respectfully disagree......

The things that we need done in the "clerk's office" aren't actually that 
novel. It's basic workplan management and document management, for the most 
part. Scale and the responsiveness of participants may be different from 
other organizations - but not THAT different.

And there's a whole lot of things other organizations do (outreach, 
exhibitions, membership management, dues processing) that we simply don't 
do.

Granted, we've grown a thicket of tradition and bizarre quirks over the 
years (for instance, we have archives of old I-Ds, and archive our mailing 
lists, but have no archives of old WG charters), but some of these are 
things that could benefit from a real "why do you need this?" look, and 
others are relatively easily implementable on more-or-less standard 
processing tools (I believe).

I suspect that the only way we can figure out if anyone can figure out what 
we want done from the descriptions we give is to ask them - we don't have 
any experience figuring out what the processes of an organization is, we 
just have experience with living inside this single instance.
(OK, some of us have experience from other orgs too....)

                   Harald

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:19:01 -0400

--On Sunday, 12 September, 2004 11:59 -0700 Carl Malamud
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> meeting agenda being part of what you call the "[standards]
> secretariat" and what I termed the "Clerk's Office".

Absolutely.  I thought that too obvious to mention, but the
clarification is obviously useful.

>> To further complicate things, I personally don't think the
>> IETF has yet figured out enough about what it really wants
>> from the secretariat part of the function and reached enough
>> consensus on that to justify any RFP-writing.  
> 
> for that piece is to attempt to negotiate a sole source
> contract with CNRI.  I don't think we understand the process
> (indeed we probably haven't defined the process enough) to do
> an RFP. Just my view, and there are reasonable opinions to the
> contrary.

See my response to Harald's note (which may take a while --
still organizing my thoughts about how to explain the comment in
a little more depth).

There is a difficulty, of course, with negotiating a sole source
deal with CNRI. If I listen to the tales of woe from various
IESG members and, to a lesser extent, the IESG and IAB as a
whole, difficulties getting CNRI/Foretec to perform that
standards-secretariat function adequately to meet their needs is
one of only two big-time, serious, critical-path problems in
this whole "administrative restructuring" area.  Of those two,
it is also the more important/critical in the sense of immediate
and obvious short-term negative impact on the ability of the
IESG, document authors, etc., to get their jobs done, i.e., on
the standards process itself.  

If we can afford to put those issues aside by going to a sole
source arrangement instead, then I don't think there is a strong
case for urgency in _any_ of your recommendations (or the
alternatives to them).

At least as important, I could easily be wrong here, but I don't
see "attempt to negotiate a sole source with CRNI" to be a
particular easy choice.  Remember that, without getting into the
additional complexities of contractual arrangements, the IETF
has been attempting to negotiate an MOU with CRNI, and then
Foretec, on and off for eight, maybe ten, years.  Having been
part of that process for a while, I'm pretty confident that
there are real differences in assumptions and perceptions that
have been important to both sides... not the sort of thing that
is easily negotiated away.

regards,
    john

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:04:43 -0400

On 12 sep 2004, at 16.39, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> The things that we need done in the "clerk's office" aren't actually 
> that novel. It's basic workplan management and document management, 
> for the most part. Scale and the responsiveness of participants may be 
> different from other organizations - but not THAT different.
>

I tend to agree with this.  Having worked in other organizations, while 
some of the details may be different the overall scope of 
administrative work appears very similar.  sure, someone would have to 
adapt to the IETF culture, but that is what they get paid for.

Having said that, I am concerned about the amount of time left in 2004 
for finding a new group to do the secretariat work by 2005.  I think we 
need to do a proper search, assuming one hasn't already been done in 
parallel, receive bids, evaluate them, discuss contracts and have a 
transition period.  I do agree with those who have argued that some 
aspects of the administrative function might be RFP'ed out separately 
in the very near future, but think that attempting to RFP the core 
services in time for 2005 continuity is a risk.  I guess this means I 
support strategy 3.

a.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:36:42 -0700

John,

JCK> To further complicate things, I personally don't think the IETF
JCK> has yet figured out enough about what it really wants from the
JCK> secretariat part of the function and reached enough consensus on
JCK> that to justify any RFP-writing.  In this respect, the material
JCK> in The Report seems to me to be inadequate unless the definition
JCK> of what the IETF wants from the secretariat is "whatever the
JCK> IESG or its leadership decide they want on a given day".

Bingo!

Thank you.

Virtually all of the "reorganization" discussion over the last year --
two, or however long it has been going on -- has been about form, and
almost literally nothing about the actual work (except to complain that
the work has not been getting done "properly". Whenever anyone has been
bold enough to ask what the details of the work actually need to be, the
response is a hand-waving dismissal.

It is time to treat the content of the work at least as seriously as we
have been treating the form of the corporate relationships.

In fact, we should defer all discussions about form until we have
detailed, written agreements about a) the details of the work, b) the
budget for getting the work done, and c) the funding basis that will
cover the budget, with enough credibility to b and c to feel legitimate
for long-term planning.

It really is time to make concrete, detailed, substantial descriptions
of the functions to be performed, to the level of work statements that
would be attached to contracts.

JCK> Now, if one separates out the tasks and constructs the RFPs and
JCK> evaluation process properly, presumably nothing would prevent
JCK> one organization from coming in and saying "we actually have all

Right.  However the upside to doing these component specifications is
that each one can be evaluated carefully and pushed towards
completeness.

and Harald,

HTA> I suspect that the only way we can figure out if anyone can figure out what
HTA> we want done from the descriptions we give is to ask them - we don't have
HTA> any experience figuring out what the processes of an organization is, we
HTA> just have experience with living inside this single instance.

Permit me to respectfully disagree......

What you are describing is quite simply handing over complete
responsibility for the IETF's operation to someone else.  So it would be
whatever they tell us it would be.

Curiously, this is exactly what you and some others have been claiming
is the problem with the current Secretariat relationship.

One does not hire a person or an organization with terms that reduce to:
"here's a bunch of money, now go figure out what you are going to do for
us."

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:04:21 +0200

> that to justify any RFP-writing.

I would question that.
It is true that we have not collected enough information in one place to 
get  a proper description, but if you add together:

- the Tao of IETF
- the current public descriptions of IESG and IETF procedures
- the (expired) draft-iesg-procedures document
- the list of things that we expect the secretariat to archive, publish and 
update (WG charters, IPR statements, liaison statements, I-Ds, meeting 
materials)

I actually think we are reasonably close to a description.

I had one series of conversations where I tried to explain what the 
secretariat does, and ended up with a puzzled "but where's the big 
expensive problem?" - our activities may be far less extraordinary than we 
may think.

One reason why we've done less on this activity than on the organizational 
structure is, I believe, because there's no real big gotcha here - we know 
approximately what the secretariat does; on the other hand, we have 
uncovered some real disagreement on how control of the support functions 
SHOULD be organized - and unless we resolve that, talking about the content 
of the secretariat contract is meaningless - we can't make a contract 
without having a basis from which to make it.

And that's what the "scenarios" threads are all about.

                            Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:29:44 +0200

--On søndag, september 12, 2004 21:36:42 -0700 Dave Crocker 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> HTA> I suspect that the only way we can figure out if anyone can figure
> out what HTA> we want done from the descriptions we give is to ask them -
> we don't have HTA> any experience figuring out what the processes of an
> organization is, we HTA> just have experience with living inside this
> single instance.
>

Permit me to respectfully disagree.

If we ask two people whether they have understood our description (and do 
the usual thing of "describe it back to us in terms you are willing to 
commit to") we get one of two things:

- Very divergent descriptions, or descriptions that we do not recognize as 
filling our needs. We need to do more homework.
- Reasonably similar descriptions, and descriptions that we recognize as 
filling our needs. Our preliminary homework is complete, and we can go to 
the contract-negotiating phase.

In neither case does the asking of the question hand over any control at 
all, of course.

And note: Whenever we contract for service, we ARE handing resposibility 
for that operation to someone else. That will never absolve us for the 
responsibility of figuring out whether they did what they promised or not.

                     Harald

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:33:17 -0700

Harald,

HTA>  but if you add together:
...
HTA> I actually think we are reasonably close to a description.

     That is quite a bit like saying that the presence of a requirements
     document means that we are 'reasonably close' to a protocol
     specification. If that were actually a valid assessment, we would
     not have problems producing protocol specifications after having a
     requirements document, and it would not take very long.

     However, if you think we are "reasonably close", then it will not
     be difficult for you to produce the document that contains the
     necessary detail, so it can be inspected for concreteness, accuracy
     and completeness.

HTA> I had one series of conversations where I tried to explain what the
HTA> secretariat does, and ended up with a puzzled "but where's the big 
HTA> expensive problem?" - our activities may be far less extraordinary than we
HTA> may think.

     First of all, for any interesting topic, there will always be some
     people representing any given point of view.  So it is not at all
     significant that you found someone who thinks that none of this is
     a big deal.

     It would be more interesting to find someone who believes that and
     who has real experience organizing and operating the relevant
     activities (events and processes) that the IETF needs to get done.

     You will not find such a person, because the actual details
     required to conduct an operation like this are substantial, and the
     constant attention to that detail required to keep things running
     smoothly is daunting.

d/

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:11:06 -0500

We kind of went away from the first half of Harald/Scott's notes, 
which was

From: "scott bradner" <[email-masked]>

> to another meeting manager if things came to that would be ideal but

Or, to ask the same question another way, how long can we wait to have 
SOMEone making arrangements for a meeting in March 2005?

Spencer

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:01:17 -0400 (EDT)

How about one in Daytona Beach?

> SOMEone making arrangements for a meeting in March 2005?

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

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:29:44 -0400

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

I think that we should have Foretec arrange all of the 2005 meetings
and run them,  period.  No arrangements to "transfer", etc.

Any new arrangement would apply to 2006 meetings.

I would expect any person hired on the schedule that Harald posted would
be involved in the spring 2005 meeting as a serious learning experience,
and from that should *immediately* attempt to organize 2006, probably
starting with the *last* meeting of 2006. 

I think that the Foretec person who has done most of this work has been
Julie. I know that she has also planned other meetings --- the ISOC,
Global IPv6 summit are two that I know, and perhaps some ICANN ones as
well. 

I'm assuming that she won't be out of a job at the end of 2005, but
rather will find her workload less hectic. 

We know that booking early saves money, and we know that locations fill
up early. (Me, I like Minneapolis just fine. I do wish to have fewer
meetings in the US)

] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions|  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:33:33 -0400

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:23:40 +0100

> up early. (Me, I like Minneapolis just fine. I do wish to have fewer

Minneapolis is indeed fine, once you discover the tunnels...

With the impending visa/biometrics/etc mess for the US, having more of the
IETFs elsewhere would reduce the travel burden.  Maybe Canada?

Tim

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:04:31 -0700 (PDT)

> IETFs elsewhere would reduce the travel burden.  Maybe Canada?

Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto are all good choices and easy to get to
for those of us coming from US. 

And as I understand it, cost of organizing conference in Canada is 
slightly less expensive then in US, but maybe that is just if you compare 
one large city to another (i.e. Toronto to NY) and comparing costs
for conference in Minneapolis and Toronto may be opposite.

Also Linux developers have annual linux symposium conference in Ottawa
and costs to attent are fairly low compared to other similar venues, so 
maybe its less expensive there.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: Hadmut Danisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:52:28 +0200

> IETFs elsewhere would reduce the travel burden.  Maybe Canada?

I'd really appreciate that.

AFAIK the US require taking fingerprints even from europeans
starting at Oct 1. So IETF60 was the last IETF I could attend
without having my fingerprints taken. I feel everything but
comfortable with that way to treat people.

Currently IETF is held at east- and west-coast. Why not 
change this into south/north? Canada in Summertime, 
Mexiko in Wintertime.

regards
Hadmut

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:15:21 +0200

> comfortable with that way to treat people.

I agree.  I sincerely would have wished IETFs from 61 and on
were held outside the US as long as they run their fingerprinting
policy.  I feel really incensed, being treated like that.  And 
I have no illusions about the fingerprints taken when I come to
IETF61 not finding their way into the US fingerprint data bases
which now, I believe, mostly hold fingerprints of criminals and
people who have been arrested and booked.  Bah.

> change this into south/north? Canada in Summertime, 

Good suggestion.

	Henrik

---

From: "Dick St.Peters" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:50:51 -0400

> people who have been arrested and booked.  Bah.

Not that I want to defend the policy, but my fingerprints have been on
file since my first security clearance in 1964.  I've always viewed
this as a benefit ... I could prove who I am should that ever become
necessary.  Being that I'm not a criminal and never had any desire to
become one, having my prints on file has never had any downside.

Having private entities keeping track of me has always seemed far more
threatening than having government keep track.  Perhaps that comes
from having lived with benign governments and not-alway-so-benign
private businesses.

--
Dick St.Peters, [email-masked] 
Gatekeeper, NetHeaven, Saratoga Springs, NY

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:34:17 +0200

Dick,

...
 > Gatekeeper, NetHeaven, Saratoga Springs, NY

based on your signature, you're presumably a citizen of the country that 
has your fingerprints on file. This allows you - in theory - to 
participate in the changing of these rules by voting, should you not 
like them. Foreigners and visa holders that enter the US do not have 
this option.

I'd also like to add, as proposed by others in this thread, that looking 
at other places on the American continent to host future IETF meetings 
may be useful. Not only because of the rising complexities of entering 
the US - IETF in Cancun sounds good to me...

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:28:06 -0400

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.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:54:24 +0200

Hi,

> was, I'm made a bit uncomfortable by it.      

please don't overinterpret. I'd be happy to discuss this further off-list.

> enjoyable location.  I'd rather see us optimize for who can attend and

If you have data that shows an inverse proportionality between the 
enjoyability of past locations and the generated IETF output, please 
post it.

Lars

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:58:48 -0400

--On Monday, 20 September, 2004 08:54 +0200 Lars Eggert
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> If you have data that shows an inverse proportionality between
> the enjoyability of past locations and the generated IETF
> output, please post it.

Lars,

I have no idea about actual IETF experience, but, based on
experience with other organizations and meetings of similar
technical focus, the key issue is not whether those who go can
get work done, or even whether some people decide to go it if is
a nice place.  Rather, it is the tendency of people who have to
review and approve travel to look at a destination, pronounce
the words "probable boggle" and then say "no".    And I've seen
enough situations in which that has occurred to make that a real
concern.  

It probably isn't enough of a concern to say "we absolutely
should, or should not, meet there", but it should be a
significant consideration.

On other observation on the US situation.  In the few years, we
have had a significant problem with participants from some
countries getting to US meetings at all due to increasing
scrutiny of visa applications and consequent difficulties in
getting visas.  Sometimes, those delays have been equivalent to
visa denial, even when no formal denial occurs.  Those
restrictions are qualitatively different from, e.g., the
fingerprint issue, since they prevent someone from even making
the decision as to whether they are willing to put up with the
marginal aggravation and intrusion to attend.  Classes of IETF
participants are excluded entirely depending on their
nationality or normal residency, and that has a direct on IETF
openness and global participation.

That is, fwiw, I've been suggesting that we reduce the focus on
meetings in the US for a few years now.  As others have pointed
out, doing that isn't quite as easy as would appear to be the
case at first glance but, IMO, we should keep trying.

   regards,
     john

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:40:14 +0200

John,

> significant consideration.

good point, and a valid concern.

One of the advantages of going to a touristy place - or the hub of a 
major airline - is inexpensive airfare and maybe decreased travel time 
due to the higher likelihood of direct fligths.

But I agree, it's a tradeoff.

Lars

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:50:03 -0400

> and run them, period.  No arrangements to "transfer", etc.

I second this.

I have often lamented that the IETF takes way too long to do anything.
But, this schedule for potentially transferring our meeting planning
starting in 2005 seems too aggressive to me.

That said, making other changes outlined in Carl's document (e.g., for
IT support) before 2006 seems perfectly reasonable if we can reach
consensus and get things going before then.

allman

--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/

---

From: "Robin Uyeshiro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:57:21 -1000

Would the IEEE 802 Plenaries have comparable geographical/logistical
requirements to IETF meetings?  Their next few plenaries are scheduled
in San Antonio, Atlanta, San Francisco, Vancouver, New Orleans, San
Diego, and Dallas.  All but one are in the US, and all are in North
America.  

I attended one plenary at Hilton Head, and talked to people about
another held on Maui, both resort areas.  This was before the crash,
though, so perhaps money is tighter now.

I'm not advocating doing the same thing; just thought another data point
might be helpful.

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/meeting/future_meetings.html

-- Robin Uyeshiro
P.S. Honolulu has a new convention center.  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
John C Klensin
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 12:59 AM
To: Lars Eggert; Sam Hartman
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IETF 62

Lars,

   regards,
     john

---

From: Scott Michel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:21:47 -0700

> like them. Foreigners and visa holders that enter the US do not have

As would I be from "the country that has your fingerprints on file".
Mine are on file as well, for completely different reasons (but not as
the result of a criminal record.)

Leaving one's fingerprints isn't a matter of political process, it's a
new condition of being a guest and visiting the United States. It's
simply the result of other people not having been good guests in the
recent past. It's also the result of the political process in D.C.
needing to make sure that all guests are treated equally (yeah, some
minor, niggly Constitutional issue prevents the government from
profiling guests entering the country or some silly issue like that.
:-)

-scooter

---

From: Michael D Frisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:14:00 -0400

The issue of the United States fingerprinting visitors is a long awaited
process.  When a person or family enters the United States they are “guests,”
and should and will be treated as a guest of “our” country.

Prior to 9/11 we were targets of some of our “visitors,” although we (US
Government) decided to quietly observe, instead of taken an active approach. 
It’s sad that it took a tragic event to change our thought process.  Today
everyone has to suffer; visitors undergo tighter security, and citizens are
awaiting the next tragic event.

As you can see from this article, an official “watch list” can work, although in
this case they were a little late.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040922/D858EV280.html

Regards,
MDF

--
Michael D. Frisch
Graduate Studies
Computer Science & ALM IT Management
203-581-2860 (Cell)
[email-masked]

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:49:50 -0700

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 08:14:00AM -0400, Michael D Frisch wrote:
> process.  When a person or family enters the United States they are ?guests,?
> and should and will be treated as a guest of ?our? country.
>[...]

What a shame that there are so few places where this dialog is on topic
that we're forced to have it here on the IETF list.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf