Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:53:28 -0400

--On Saturday, July 15, 2006 6:36 PM +0200 Brian E Carpenter 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> It may have got lost in this thread, but Fred has got the nub
> of
> the argument here: the IETF's goal is to do its work as
> efficiently
> as possible, and that means assembling at locations that are
> (on some sort of average) convenient for our active
> participants.
> In practical terms, that means assembling in countries or
> regions
> with a good number of current participants.

It also means such things as:

    * picking places within those countries or regions that have
    good airports with easy (and multiple) international
    connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
    regard.  Based on experience in the last year or so, I'd
    suggest that Cape Town and Marrakech (suggested in another
    posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg and
    Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).

    * picking places where we can be assured of adequate, and
    rock-solid, connectivity at both the meeting site and, if
    different, the hotel(s).  That ought to be easy, but we
    aren't there yet.  When I was in Marrakech (at an ICANN
    meeting) a few weeks ago, we lost the network multiple times
    due to difficulties with the international link and
    insufficient backup/ alternate path bandwidth (see below).
    There were also some problems that, in principle (but not in
    practice) could have been fixed or avoided locally, but an
    international link outage from a remote location can easily
    be a showstopper.  Similarly, while last week's meeting was
    superb in many respects, the condition of the network in the
    Delta was effective at preventing many of us from working
    overnight... whether to catch up on day job activities or to
    work on drafts, the impact is reduced productivity and, to
    some degree, an incentive to stay home rather than attend
    meetings.

My own view, even if it is not politically correct, is that IETF 
should leave the outreach to exotic places to ISOC, ICANN, and 
others.  I'm very much in favor of our continuing to meet in 
some proportionate way in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific -- and 
other places if we have adequate participation.  But let's stick 
to the places from which we have adequate participation and 
where we can run an efficient meeting with efficient transport 
to and from the location.  The theory that we should go to 
places to stimulate participation from those places really does 
not work: our real work requires extensive read-in, not just 
skimming a few documents and going to a newcomer's orientation 
(if that).  The people from remote places whom we want to have 
participate in person should already be participating via 
mailing lists.

The model underlying the pie chart is a little weak in that 
regard, since it shows meeting attendance rather than 
participation.  Perhaps we should be looking to ways to measure 
participation that counts effective mailing list participants so 
as to increase the priority of the places from which they come. 
But going to a place that is difficult for most participants to 
get to, with network performance and availability that is hard 
to predict in advance, in the hope of getting more useful 
participation from that area, strikes me as yet another way to 
shoot ourselves in the foot.

> Outreach is important, and welcoming new active contributors
> is important, but the dominant consideration is a location that
> is convenient and effective for our current active
> contributors

Yes, and that brings me to....

> Patrick Vande Walle wrote:

>> The place where we had the ICANN meeting in Marrakech
>> provided fast connectivity, very good mobile phone coverage
>> and all you would need for a productive meeting, despite the
>> fact that it was located  in Africa.

Interesting.  We either have different criteria or were at 
different meetings.  Let's ignore the 802.11 network, which 
frequently became unusable apparently due to causes one could 
have experienced anywhere.  I saw the audio stream to outside 
locations collapse several times, the international links suffer 
outages that took some time to resolve, and so on.   Until ICANN 
staff managed to cut the hotel network over into the meeting 
network, the hotel network and its provisioning arrangements 
were completely swamped by ICANN participants (and that type of 
cutover arrangement can't always be worked out on short notice) 
I don't have hard data, but my subjective impression from 
listening to people complain is that the meeting may have set a 
record for lost luggage in recent years. I'd love to go back 
there on vacation, but it is not a place I can recommend holding 
a meeting that is strongly dependent on good quality Internet 
connections with 100% uptime.

>>  This is a counter
>> example to what your are trying to demonstrate.

Unfortunately, it is an example, not a counter-example.

>> There are
>> many places places in Africa, Asia-Pacific  and Latin America
>> where you could have a productive meeting. One only needs to
>> look for them.

Sure.  But if one needs the types of facilities and connectivity 
that IETF needs, I think you are underestimating the 
difficulties of the search... and of being sure one has the 
right place and facilities once one finds them.

>> It is more in terms of interacting with the local
>> community  to find out  what they expect to come out  of a
>> standardization process.

But changing that requires a level of outreach to which the IETF 
has not aspired.  See my comments about existing participants 
above.  Think about how much "interacting with the local 
community" we did in Montreal.  Remember the comments made in 
Marrakech that ICANN wasn't doing main sessions in French or 
Arabic and contemplate the costs, delays, and difficulty of 
parallel translation of IETF materials.

>>  The hypothesis by which whatever is
>> good for the Northern hemisphere is automatically fine for
>> the rest of the world seems slightly colonialist to me.

Such a hypothesis would be very unattractive if anyone had it or 
offered it.  But, in the time I've been around the IETF, I have 
never heard such a thing suggested in seriousness.

And, to save writing an extra note just for this...
--On Saturday, July 15, 2006 6:00 AM -0400 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Definitively there are several countries: Spain, Mexico,
> Chile, Argentina, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Panama.

Ok, this discussion just passed over into the unreal.  I assume 
that one reason we have been meeting increasingly in Canada 
(Vancouver last fall, Montreal now) is because it is getting 
harder for some active participants to get visa to come to the 
US.  So let's site a meeting in a place where it is illegal for 
those holding US passports to travel and in which it might be 
illegal to bring in the equipment needed to run the meeting. 
Remember that percentage of draft authors from another posting? 
Want the IESG to attend?   Some of the other countries on that 
list are plausible if the right city is chosen.  Others... well, 
see my comments  about connectivity above.   Those work if our 
purpose is to show that we hold meetings in such places.  If the 
purpose is to get work done, no possible way.

best,
     john

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:41:53 -0700

John C Klensin wrote:
>>    the IETF's goal is to do its work as>> efficiently
...
>    connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
...
>    different, the hotel(s).  
...
> My own view, even if it is not politically correct, is that IETF should
> leave the outreach to exotic places to ISOC, ICANN, and others
...
>     But let's stick to the places from which we have
> adequate participation and where we can run an efficient meeting with
> efficient transport to and from the location. 

+1 to each of these points.

d/

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:21:19 +0300

>     Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).

Some data about San Diego: Today, the flight information page on San 
Diego "International" Airport web site shows a couple of flights
to/from Mexico and a couple to/from Canada -- all the others are
within US.

When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer cities that
have several direct flight connections from both Europe and Asia. 
Of the recent IETF meeting places, San Diego is the only one that
clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?

Best regards,
Pasi

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:45:12 -0400

Hello;

> clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?

Even direct flights within the US can be hard to find.

Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your  
tickets,
you may find it faster / cheaper / better
to fly to LAX or Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <-> San  
Diego is ~ 200 km, and LAX
is basically on the San Diego Freeway.) I did this for the one San  
Diego IETF.

If you do that, be aware that there is a permanent immigration  
checkpoint on the
San Diego freeway Northbound, which can cause backups returning.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:47:40 -0400

On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> to fly to LAX or Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <->  
> San Diego is ~ 200 km, and LAX

s/the one San Diego IETF/the one San Diego IETF I attended/

Sorry for the typo
Marshall

---

From: Stephen Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:38:15 -0400

> San Diego freeway Northbound, which can cause backups returning.

Or skip the car. Fly into LAX, take one of several shuttles to Los  
Angeles Union Station, and take Amtrak's "Surfliner" to San Diego.  
These trains run every 1 to 2 hours and get to San Diego in less than  
3 hours. And it's hassle-free.

Regards,

Steve Campbell
Lyme, New Hampshire, US

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:21:19 -0400

--On Monday, 17 July, 2006 15:21 +0300 [email-masked]
wrote:

>>     * picking places within those countries or regions that
>>     have good airports with easy (and multiple) international
>>     posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg
>>     and Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).
> 
> Some data about San Diego: Today, the flight information page
> on San  Diego "International" Airport web site shows a couple
> of flights to/from Mexico and a couple to/from Canada -- all
> the others are within US.

That is why I said "a little marginal".   If it were not for
fairly easy ground connections from major airports in the Los
Angeles area, "marginal" would have been too charitable.

Given the breakdown of advance planning and arrangements during
the Secretariat transition period, I think the Secretariat and
IASA deserve a little slack for a meeting or two, but I would
hope that careful attention would be paid to the airport issue
as future sites are evaluated. 

    john

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 06:46:11 -0700

Marshall Eubanks wrote:

Nobody flies from LAX to San Diego because it ends up taking
twice as long as driving for 10 times as much, so don't expect
lots of flights from LA.

For visitors, you might want to fly to LAX, rent a car,
drive down the 405, and take a detour to the Laguna Beach
area on the way down (or back) for a little vacation time.

BTW, 3 comments on some real topics:

  - Meeting location is a minor factor for me when I go to the IETF meeting.
    Whether or not I have active drafts in WGs (author or chair) is the gating
    factor whether I go to the IETF at all, regardless of where it is located.

  - I strongly support Fred Baker's notion of location fairness,
    just as I did when Fred was IETF Chair.

  - I didn't find a terminal room, but instead a giant 'break room'
    for ad-hoc meetings and food breaks.  This was wonderful, and
    about time! 802.11 has thankfully made the terminal room obsolete.
    I want this format every time.  Please consider 2 enhancements:

      - A/C around the perimeter for laptop power
      - beverages available (at least pitchers of water) all day

Andy

---

From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:28:48 -0600 (MDT)

> clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?

Taking flight connections and visa requirements into account, I've always 
wondered why Vancouver doesn't get more meetings.  I'm sure sponsorship 
has a lot to do with it.

--lyndon

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:41:35 +0200

>    I want this format every time.  Please consider 2 enhancements:

Ignoring the subject, I just want to add enthusiastic praise for the
big all-day break room.  It was great for meeting people and getting
work done, instead of sitting on the floor in the hallways or out in a
park (well, we did that once).  It's a big productivity enhancer and I
hope it wouldn't cost too much to continue something like it.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:43:15 -0400

Maybe we (or even I) should open a voting page where people could  
enter their desired locations; or, conversely, the iAD could make it  
part of the meeting survey.

Regards
Marshall

On Jul 17, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

> Taking flight connections and visa requirements into account, I've  
> always wondered why Vancouver doesn't get more meetings.  I'm sure  
> sponsorship has a lot to do with it.
>
> --lyndon
>

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:03:34 +0100

> 3 hours. And it's hassle-free.

Not so good after 9+ hours on a plane though, is it?   Nor is driving.

Minneapolis has a good selection of direct flights, as does Washington
or San Francisco if people want 'nicer' places.

Having to hop just adds to the drain of travelling :(

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:43:08 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> tickets, you may find it faster / cheaper / better to fly to LAX or
> Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <-> San Diego is ~ 200
> km, and LAX is basically on the San Diego Freeway.) I did this for
> the one San Diego IETF.

Yes, but be prepared to find that the traffic may be stop-and-go all
the way except for the portion through Camp Pendleton.  That's how it
was last time I drove that route.

                                                        -- Steve

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:41:28 -0400

Yes, the 405 can have traffic jams anywhere at any time, including  
2:00 AM. Those
seem particularly unjust.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:13:43 -0400

>       - beverages available (at least pitchers of water) all day

There actually was a terminal room, hidden around the corner to the left as 
you walked away from registration.  I went there exactly twice, to pick up 
printouts for the PGP session (once would have been nice, but my laptop 
crashed and I was late for a meeting, so had to go back afterward).

I definitely agree that the all-day "cookie room" was a great idea, and I'd 
very much like to see this sort of thing again.  It could do with a few 
more tables and power than we had this time, and an all-day supply of water 
or beverages would be good, too.

Of course, the potential negative aspect is that folks who aren't attenting 
the session right before a cookie break can "camp out" and grab cookies 
right as they arrive.  But, that can happen anywhere...

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:18:10 -0400

> Not so good after 9+ hours on a plane though, is it?   Nor is driving.

Actually, it's pretty nice.  The seats are nicely spaced, there's plentiful 
power, beverages, and you can get up and walk around.

Of course, my opinions on this matter might be a bit biased.  For example, 
I see no reason to fly to LAX and take a shuttle to Los Angeles Union 
Station when it takes a mere two days to get there by rail from Chicago 
Union Station. :-)

-- Jeff

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:06:02 +0300

> twice as long as driving for 10 times as much, so don't expect

For IETF67, I'm leaving home around 6AM, and arrive at LAX some 19
hours later (and fly from LAX to San Diego). After this kind of trip,
driving would be dangerous not just to myself, but everyone else on
the road as well...

(BTW, how much would a taxi from LAX to San Diego cost? And would
you expect taxis willing to do it?)

>     - beverages available (at least pitchers of water) all day

Good suggestions, I second these!

Best regards,
Pasi

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:24:45 +0200

It's fun to chat but there are 2000+ people here so maybe the topic is exhausted?

At least please change the Subject when you change the subject.

    Brian

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:42:37 -0700

[ Disclaimer, I grew up in San Diego and now live in the LA area, so I have
biases in both directions. :) ]

> you expect taxis willing to do it?)

It's 120+ miles from LAX to the Sheraton San Diego, so a taxi isn't
practical. However, there are various ground transportation services that
ply that route, so if there is sufficient interest I wouldn't mind looking
into it and posting the results. I would say that the suggestion already
offered of the train from LA's Union Station to San Diego is a good one. The
city of Los Angeles recently introduced a low cost shuttle between the
station and the airport, and the train station in San Diego is just a few
miles away from the Sheraton. My mother takes the train up from San Diego
when she comes to visit her granddaughter (I am of course a second
consideration), and has very good things to say about it. The train spends a
good deal of its time within view of the coast, so you get a fairly scenic
ride as well.

All that said, they do have commuter flights between LAX and SAN, so a
connecting flight is not as absurd as it sounds.

hth,

Doug

-- 
    If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough

---

From: "Clint Chaplin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:29:27 -0700

One data point: IEEE 802 is in San Diego this week, and I've met at
least one attendee who flew through LAX to get here; that is, he took
LAX -> SAN as his last leg.

-- 
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Wireless Security Technologist
Wireless Standards Manager

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:56:00 -0700

> LAX -> SAN as his last leg.

the flight is so short, one can feel guilty taking it.  however the effort to
rent a car from an airport, drive through Southern California traffic, and then
either have the car sit for a week or try to dump it upon arrival, all make
taking that short flight a reasonable choice.

d/

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:55:04 -0700

>taking that short flight a reasonable choice.
Or go through SFO. Given the fixed time costs of getting a plane in the air
at all, the time difference between SFO and LAX are probably negligible.
Of course one must make certain that SFO's runways are both open...

       Mike

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:39:24 +0200

I did this the last time we where in San Diego. The only thing to be  
concerned about is at least United operated small planes with not to  
good frequency (at least then) and tends to fill up on Saturday  
afternoon and Sunday morning (I noticed).

Then going from International to domestic at LAX turned out to be a  
small adventure but I think that was a unique experience I would be  
happy to tell in a bar..:)

- kurtis -

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:53:20 -0700

> taking that short flight a reasonable choice.

First, I want to clarify my original mail.
I meant that if you live in LA, it doesn' pay
to fly to San Diego.  It's way faster and cheaper
to drive your own car there instead of flying.

Second, remember that the San Diego location is not close
to very many good dining and drinking spots, so having
a car at the next IETF will be useful.

Third, renting a car in LA and driving is a really bad idea
(instead of getting a free connecting flight) unless you
want to visit LA or the area between LA and San Diego while you
at the next IETF.  (Trust me, if you have never been to
Laguna Beach, go there if you want to see what SoCal is
really like.)

Andy

---

From: "Clint Chaplin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:06:12 -0700

The limitation on lack of eating and drinking places near the venue is
because of the choice of the particular hotel.  IEEE is in the Hyatt
on the waterfront, and Old Town is well within walking distace, with
lots of restaurant choices.