Jordi, You're being unrealistic as you usually are on this topic. I'm going to reply to couple of points in this thread in one message for the sake of brevity. JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Hi John, > > I didn't said that operating a meeting outside US is cheaper than in US. I > said that the cost for *participants* is lower. > > In fact, I know that a meeting in US is cheaper for the IETF, by the simple > fact that meeting rooms aren't charged, which is not true probably in most > of the other parts of the world. The meeting rooms are included in the the room block. if you don't make the room block Then there's a penalty associated with that. If for example everyone decides to stay in another hotel then you pay for the meeting space. We could pay for the meeting space in exchange for a lower room rate, but either way you slice it the hotel has a minimum number they need to make on a meeting of a gived size and duration and they won't go below that. > I also indicated that this is the reason why many sponsors prefer to have > the meetings in US, because it becomes cheaper to them, and one more reason > to split the "sponsor" from the "host" function and arrange the meetings in > venues not tied to a specific sponsor, in order to be able to have them more > frequently outside US. > > What this means is that we may need to increase the registration fee. You're just moving costs around, it's unlikely to make anything cheaper. If cost of hosting is more expensive in a given location and the participants will bear that additional cost under your model, your assertion is that it will be cheaper due to some of them having lower travel costs. Again that strikes me as unrealistic. the meeting fee doesn't have to get that much bigger before it eclipses either travel or lodging costs as the major expense. What's more you're missing the heart of the issue. Which in my opinion is that the operation of the overhead functions that are the general ietf infrastructure are funded out of the meeting fees which means the amount made on the meeting has to exceed the actual costs by order of 50%. At the sane time, the organization is if you haven't noticed shrinking and it's character is changing. It has more professional standards folks and fewer of the students, academics and network operators that made it interesting to me 10 years ago. Pushing higher costs onto potential attendees isn't likely to attract more of them. > AND > THIS IS THE RIGHT THING DO TO in order to evenly share the costs between ALL > the participants, but only if the sharing of event locations is also FAIR. > Otherwise, more people traveling from other regions to US means more cost > from them, which is not fairly shared among ALL the participants. Your basic beef appears be not that it's cheaper travel-wise from the perspective of some participants to hold the meeting outside the US (if it was you wouldn't be advocating for meetings in South America or Africa which don't have significant historical participation) but rather that the host sponsored model can require a significant capital outlay to make the meeting work in some potential destinations. Now I know you offered to host a meeting back in the CNRI days so perhaps you can share from direct experience what it would have cost you under the current model to host the meeting in Spain? > The poor network infrastructure is not only a question of the links. It is a > question of having a good or bad network, like the problem that we had all > this week with the DHCP. Having a good link the network was still unusable > 60% of the time. I don't believe the network was unusable 60% of the time. perhaps you are engaging in hyperbole? > It is also a question of good or bad luck, and this may > happen anywhere. The network runs smoothly in the hands of the most experienced operators with as much advance planning as is feasible. These things have costs. The best effort volunteer model in conjunction with an accommodating host has produced the best networks the IETF has experienced. The IAD and the IAOC are experimenting with contracted network services and models which involve both volunteer and contractor effort. If you provide them with feedback on your experiences that will no doubt be valuable information. > A road construction can break a fiber everywhere in the > world and you only avoid this with a backup link, which for example I > believe ICANN doesn't compared with IETF. The primary circuit was donated due to the diligent efforts of the volunteers and at&t participants. Obtaining connectivity in arbitrary locations is neither easy nor cheap. This location in Chicago was easier than some. > Regards, > Jordi > > In another message you wrote: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > And in the concrete case of the Palmer house, the price of the hotel > was not worth to pay for, in my opinion. Rooms very old and dark, not > even having wardrobe to hang up the clothes :-(, in addition to the > construction issues. Remember you're not just paying for the room you're paying for the conference facility through the room block pricing... If you have google you can relatively easily find some other recent conference rates in the palmer house for comparison. You'll find I think that the pricing structure varies based on the technical, space and catering requirements for the conference some are higher, most are lower. have fewer cookies and not block out dozens of conference rooms from Saturday until Friday and the room rate could be lower. > Yes, it was a very nice hotel (but I don't really mind that, because > I come there to work and keep doing my regular daily tasks), and had > an excellent gym, which I really appreciate, however, the one in > Prague was much better in my opinion (including a much better and > bigger gym). > > Regards, > Jordi > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf