Andy, I have been involved as local host now for two times (although I wasn't very local this time ;-)). I agree that it doesn't make sense to build a network each and every time completely from scratch. It is an enormous effort to beg potential sponsors for accesspoints (or spend a lot of money to buy them), to figure out how to build a terminal room and how to equip it, to buy servers and install monitoring software that gets wiped out right after the meeting to mention just a few examples. Luckily, we and the very experienced group of volunteers that helped us did have some memories (nightmares?) from previous meetings but it would have been way more efficient if a lot of the building blocks were simply already in place before a host even volunteers to be the host (and I think a host would more easily take on this role if the job was a bit more manageable). I personally believe that we would be better off if the same experienced (paid for) group would build the network each and every time with the same equipment owned by IETF, while the sponsor does what they are best at, and that is providing funding for the actual meeting. David Kessens PS it will also be easier to deal with complaints: no cookies at the break ? well, maybe you or employer should have sponsored the break then. --- On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:34:00PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > Dave Crocker wrote: > >Michael StJohns wrote: > >>What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to > >>subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's what it > >>works out to be.... > > > >This view can be mapped to a classic model that would have significant > >benefits for the IETF: > > > > > >A "host" gets all sorts of marketing leverage out of the role in > >producing an IETF. > > > >There is nothing that requires that the event site management effort be > >coupled with a particular host's venue. > > > >If we moved to a model of having companies provide sponsorship funds, in > >return for which they get appropriate marketing presence, then we could > >have meeting venue management move to the sort of predictable and timely > >basis -- ie, far enough ahead of time -- that has been a concern for > >many years. > > Amen! And maybe the meeting fees could actually go down > with enough sponsors. An additional room like the terminal > room (not out in the open) could be used. > > Also, the IETF could maintain control of the > network if there were multiple sponsors instead > of a single host. They would not be allowed to ignore > the advice of the NOC team, and let the wireless meltdown > right off the bat. > > Andy _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf