Agreed. External Internet connectivity, internal Internet access and a terminal room are all included in the envelope. Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: graham.travers@xxxxxx [mailto:graham.travers@xxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 3:53 AM > To: bwijnen@xxxxxxxxxx; steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...) > > > Umm, not so fast.... > > When we hosted the London meeting, we were told which venue > was to be used. It turned out that we had to install extra > network capacity to the hotel, especially for the meeting, > because the hotel didn't have what was required. ( So the > hotel did pretty well out of it. ) > > There's more to arranging an IETF venue than securing the > right number of meeting rooms. We need to get the functional > requirements for these things specified properly. > > Regards, > > Graham Travers > > International Standards Manager > BT Group > > e-mail: graham.travers@xxxxxx > tel: +44(0) 1359 235086 > mobile: +44(0) 7808 502536 > HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK > > BT Group plc > Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ > Registered in England and Wales no. 4190816 This electronic > message contains information from BT Group plc which may be > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be > for the use of the > individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, > distribution or use of the contents of this information is > prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in > error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers > or address above) immediately. Activity and use of the BT > Group plc E-mail system is monitored to secure its effective > operation and for other lawful business purposes. > Communications using this system will also be monitored and > may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other > lawful business purposes. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Sent: 12 September 2004 19:41 > To: Steve Crocker; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...) > > > Exactly, I agree with Steve here. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 18:51 > > To: 'Margaret Wasserman'; 'scott bradner'; ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...) > > > > > > 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: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx > [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf > > > Of Margaret Wasserman > > > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 12:00 PM > > > To: scott bradner; ietf@xxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...) > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Scott, > > > > > > At 5:06 PM -0400 9/11/04, scott bradner wrote: > > > >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) > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ietf mailing list > > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf