>>This is not the solution. >> >>I'm not going to change the technology that I use because we haven't been able to setup a good network here. We should learn from the mistakes and do it better next time, as we know it worked in Vienna. >> >>I use b or g, because is what I carry with me, and I will not accept being forced to move to a, because we aren't able to fix problem that can be solved, is not rational ! If the network is a/b/g, then no problem, but not restrict the support for one or the other. We know b and g work ! Using this logic, we might still be back in the dark ages... technology evolves, new/better technology comes along. You cannot expect to use the same technology meeting-after-meeting when the volume of traffic, kinds of operating systems, viruses, etc. are changing. >>The network is important for most of us. I'm not going to attend to more meeting if the network is not warranted to work, because this is taking a lot of my time, and I need facilities to do it, not difficulties. The volunteer effort need some compensation, and we only demand for a stable network. I think is not too much, specially because we know that can be done. On this front... the IETF is running into the same problem as the airlines... being asked to do more work with fewer people while at the same time charging the attendees more (who then expect MORE service for their money). Such is the times we live in. -Kevin