Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:01:42 -0400

On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Darryl ((Dassa)) Lynch wrote:

> The closer the events are  to  my location, the more likely  it   
> is   I may make it.

To be honest, for those of us that don't have a business reason to  
ignore distance as an issue (and companies will tend to trade off  
number of people for money spent getting them there), this is a  
general truth. The thing is that we're from all over- at this  
meeting, 44 countries - so that argument doesn't help as much as it  
used to. Once upon a time, the guideline I followed was that about  
1/6 of the IETF was from Europe, a smattering was from elsewhere, and  
the lion's share was from the US, so I scheduled a meeting every  
other year in Europe, the odd one in random places, and the lion's  
share in the US. Those statistics are essentially meaningless now.

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

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:14:34 -0400

On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
> Once upon a time,
> the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe,
> a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US,
> so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in
> random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those statistics are
> essentially meaningless now.

Why are they meaningless?  The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where
the participants are, wherever that might be.  I still like your
algorithm.

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:04:37 -0700

> the participants are, wherever that might be.  I still like your

I think he's saying the old heuristic is inaccurate because the 
distribution of participants has changed. looking at the pie chart, the 
US represents slight less than 50% of the participants and .jp .kr .cn 
make up almost 1/4

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/plenaryw-0.pdf

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:04:28 -0400

The IETF should indeed meet where our participants come from. That  
was my initial comment (from the mike) on "are we from Latin America,  
Africa, or Antarctica?" I think that remains to be shown.

That said, I'll remind you of the demographics of this particular  
meeting, working from memory from the slide Brian showed Wednesday  
evening. It looked to me like this meeting was a tad less than half  
from North America, perhaps 20% from Japan and China, and most of the  
rest from Europe. That argues for roughly half of our meetings being  
in North America, a meeting every other year in Asia, and the rest in  
Europe. What Brian then has to ask is "what are the trend lines". My  
understanding from his behavior (we haven't actually had this  
conversation) is that he thinks we are trending towards being roughly  
equally from those regions, and therefore is trying to distribute  
meetings roughly evenly among them.

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:04:37 -0700

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:04:28 -0400

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:20:08 -0400

On 14-jul-2006, at 11:04, Fred Baker wrote:

> It looked to me like this meeting was a tad less than half from  
> North America, perhaps 20% from Japan and China, and most of the  
> rest from Europe. That argues for roughly half of our meetings  
> being in North America, a meeting every other year in Asia, and the  
> rest in Europe.

There is a measure of self-selection. If you look at the attendence  
for meetings on other continents you'll see different figures.

But apart from that, this makes sense, but it's only part of the  
picture. Not all places on a given continent are equally reachable.  
For instance, it's easier to get to New York from many places in  
Europe than to many medium-sized cities elsewhere in Europe. And  
flying to San Diego takes just about twice as long as to New York for  
me. Then there is the whole visa issue.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:07:54 -0400

Thanks for the clarification.  I just wanted to be sure what "those
statistics" referred to.

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:48:10 -0400

US by itself was about half, and Canada was about another 10%. The
current split of 2/3 in North America and alternating Europe and Asia
once a year still seems to make sense from the stats.

	Tony Hansen

Fred Baker wrote:
> evening. It looked to me like this meeting was a tad less than half from
> North America, perhaps 20% from Japan and China, and most of the rest
> from Europe. That argues for roughly half of our meetings being in North
> America, a meeting every other year in Asia, and the rest in Europe.
> 
>>> Once upon a time, the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of
>>> the IETF was from Europe, a smattering was from elsewhere, and
>>> other year in Europe, the odd one in random places, and the
>>> lion's share in the US. Those statistics are essentially
>>> meaningless now.
>>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:55:37 -0400

from the norht american stats. I would encourage you to compare the  
european and asiapac meetings, from the proceedings. My observation  
is that the region/country the meeting happens in tends to be  
exaggerated. Yokohama, for example, was 1977 folks, of which 1/4 were  
US and perhaps 40% were Japanese. Seoul was similar.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:04:48 -0400

There are two issues:

1) Cost. IETF has limited resources, so unless each of us want to pay more
and more for the registration fees or we are able to compensate the cost
with more sponsors (which is every day more difficult), we need to look for
cheaper locations.

2) Is un fair that the main driver is only looking at where more people
comes from (this is fortunately changing anyway, and thus will less and less
easy to match). Even worst if that's a country with doesn't allow everyone
to come in.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
> Organización: Cisco Systems, Inc.
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:14:34 -0400
> Para: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
> CC: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions
> 

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

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

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: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:11:15 -0400

good point

Fred Baker wrote:
> european and asiapac meetings, from the proceedings. My observation is
> that the region/country the meeting happens in tends to be exaggerated.
> Yokohama, for example, was 1977 folks, of which 1/4 were US and perhaps
> 40% were Japanese. Seoul was similar.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:22:19 -0400

If the IETF is trying to promote the Internet (as ICANN does), then 
holding meetings where participants aren't generally from is a step 
in spreading the Internet.

If the IETF is meant to be a bare-bones, get engineering work done, 
it ought to be in the most cost effective location.  For what ever 
formulation of cost effective.

If the IETF is to be both, we have to compromise.

"Cost effective" is relative.  I was asked what that meant to me: it 
means least transit time from my couch to the hotel registration 
desk.  I know that's not generalizable - as no one else travels from 
my couch to the IETF.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Soccer/Futbol. IPv6.  Both have lots of 1's and 0's and have a hard time
catching on in North America.

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:54:16 -0700

> easy to match). Even worst if that's a country with doesn't allow everyone

So where is this mythical low cost easy to travel to country within
easy reach of an untapped resource of potential ietf participants?

Once we've located it, it should be easy for the IAD to book us a hotel
on the dates we've fixed in stone 2 years in advance...

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
Joel Jaeggli ([email-masked])
GPG Key Fingerprint:
5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:49:44 -0400

Hi,

I think I am somewhat confused by this discussion.

In one place you say:

On 14 jul 2006, at 11.04, Fred Baker wrote:

> was my initial comment (from the mike) on "are we from Latin  
> America, Africa, or Antarctica?" I think that remains to be shown.
>
>

and in another:

On 14 jul 2006, at 11.55, Fred Baker wrote:
> exaggerated. Yokohama, for example, was 1977 folks, of which 1/4  
> were US and perhaps 40% were Japanese. Seoul was similar.

so does this mean that when the meeting is in NA, then the NA  
population is also exaggerated.

Or rather that a large number of participants will come from whatever  
region the meeting is in
(at least for the NA, EU, or Asiapac regions - we have no evidence on  
LAC or Africa), giving us no objective criteria for weighing one  
region over another.

If this holds, don't we have a parity situation where the meetings  
should alternate equally between these 3 regions with maybe an  
occasional meeting in a developing area, like an easy to get to  
region in Africa or LAC.

a.

---

From: "Stephane H. Maes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:11:11 -0700

I definitively support the view that IETF should reach larger audiences of participants and therefore target regions in a balanced manner not based on the % of participants. Many do not participate because their travel challenges are almost never addressed by IETF. These statistics are skewed by the current bias and that is in fact the cusp of the issue.

Organizing events in such regions turned out in my experience to bring even more deeply involved and expert participants that in IETF traditional areas of focus. 

Many regions offer cheaper facilities with excellent (dare I say better) services and business infrastructure. Travel pain should be equitably distributed. Note that while further away for some of us, travel cost for the participants can often turn out significantly lower in locations not typically targeted by IETF. I can definitively provide some pointers based on lessons from organizing or participating to standard events for other organizations.

We should strive at balanced amount of meetings in all the regions without preferences. This is what being a global organization is about...

Stephane

PS Jordi, in your list, I think you should also include Asia (beyond Japan/South Korea).

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:54 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> There are two issues:
> 
> 1) Cost. IETF has limited resources, so unless each of us want to pay 
> more and more for the registration fees or we are able to compensate 
> the cost with more sponsors (which is every day more difficult), we 
> need to look for cheaper locations.
> 
> 2) Is un fair that the main driver is only looking at where more 
> people comes from (this is fortunately changing anyway, and thus will 
> less and less easy to match). Even worst if that's a country with 
> doesn't allow everyone to come in.

So where is this mythical low cost easy to travel to country within easy reach of an untapped resource of potential ietf participants?

Once we've located it, it should be easy for the IAD to book us a hotel on the dates we've fixed in stone 2 years in advance...

>>> the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from 
>>> Europe, a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was 
>>> from the US, so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, 
>>> the odd one in random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those 
>>> statistics are essentially meaningless now.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:56:30 +0200

>the participants are, wherever that might be.  I still like your

May be the IETF should also look for other working methods which 
would permit to involve more people more pertinently while needing 
less meetings. The ITEF matter is technical, the target is to produce 
document which will be _read_ by engineers from all over the world. 
Why would this necessarily call for people to meet? May be the main 
problem of the IETF documents is that they are from a culture of 
people having f2f meetings to tune their positions, while their 
users/readers do not. I think it is a common problem to many 
organizations. But that of all the technical organizations/SSDO the 
IETF is probably the best suited to address that problem, because it 
has the competence, experience, and a significant part of 
participants being on their own expense account.
jfc

---

From: "Darryl \(Dassa\) Lynch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:08:05 +1000

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:05 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
|> 
|> There are two issues:

I believe there are far more issues which makes the whole thing much more
complex than most of us would like and it is sometimes a good idea to hash
over the issues now and again to see if there have been any changes which may
assist with future direction.
 
|> 1) Cost. IETF has limited resources, so unless each of us 
|> want to pay more and more for the registration fees or we 
|> are able to compensate the cost with more sponsors (which is 
|> every day more difficult), we need to look for cheaper locations.

For someone like me who is involved in a lot of things from personal interest
and inclination without corporate backing, costs are an important issue.  I've
given some thought to this, how participation is restricted for individuals
and have come to the conclusion it is not such a bad thing.  Individuals can
participate in the IETF without having it cost them a fortune which is
different to a lot of other organisations, even if that participation is
somewhat limited.  It is one of the great things about the IETF I like, how
anyone can become involved.

|> 2) Is un fair that the main driver is only looking at where 
|> more people comes from (this is fortunately changing anyway, 
|> and thus will less and less easy to match). Even worst if 
|> that's a country with doesn't allow everyone to come in.

I'm not sure if it is because I'm getting older and have more understanding or
if I have seen enough evidence to support it but I find myself relying more on
the intrinsic good will of people and assuming they make decisions after
considering all factors, more often than not.  As has been pointed out, the
location will affect demographics and I'm satisfied this is considered when a
decision is made on where the next meeting will be held.  As are a lot of
other factors.

There will always be ideas put forward for alternative locations and ways to
decide on the selection.  This is a good thing.  It keeps the whole process on
track.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:00:23 -0400

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

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:54:16 -0700
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> CC: <[email-masked]>
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

---

From: "Stephane H. Maes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:12:52 -0700

Add Singapore, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, ... 

Stephane

-----Original Message-----
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 3:00 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions

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

Regards,
Jordi

> Once we've located it, it should be easy for the IAD to book us a 
> hotel on the dates we've fixed in stone 2 years in advance...
> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:15:30 +0000

MEXICO!!!!