On Sun, 24 May 2009, John C Klensin wrote: > Let me see if I can ask the question in a slightly more productive way. > > Ray and IAOC: > > I assume that, in each of these out-of-the-way cases, you have asked potential > hosts to pick locations that meet other criteria, such as the airport one, and > that they have said "no, we won't sponsor except in our chosen location". > Could you confirm that? It's rarely just a matter of "the hosts chosen location," but what is available at a given time and what is suitable for an IETF meeting in terms of: hotels, venue and network-ability to coin a phrase. In the case of The Netherlands (where the major sponsors for this meeting are based), it's a choice between maybe 3 possible venues and, no they don't care which one nor are they the sole decider. In the case of Japan, Hiroshima would not necessarily have been the #1 choice if they had been given the option to host "any year", but this wasn't the case for that particular meeting. In other words, availability of venues is a major factor. At the end of the day it's a tradeoff between competing requirements. Having said that, Hiroshima is considerably less expensive than Tokyo/Yokohama. Hiroshima is also superbly connected by train to Tokyo (and Osaka), perhaps the best train service in the world, but yes, it takes a few extra hours to get there. I would also like to note that never in the history of Hiroshima has there been so much effort put into making sure the IETF is happy, all the way to the Mayor level. They're really going out of their way to support this meeting. Coming from Tokyo to Minneapolis isn't exactly a single hop either if you want to consider another case. Plug: See hiroshima-info.info for general travel information for IETF 76. > > I also assume that you have attempted to launch a "sponsor IETF meetings" > program on a "contribute to a fund" basis, as distinct from "host this > particular meeting", and either gotten no useful response or discovered that > host in-kind contributions in specific locations dominate possible cash > contributions. Can you confirm that as well? I think Ray and Drew can answer this better, but let's just say that the "money pool" idea is very difficult to sell to most sponsors. > > Finally, I assume that the IAOC has done an analysis, not only of what it > would cost us to abandon hosted meetings entirely, but of what it would cost > --both in absolute and meeting-fee terms-- to say "no" to hosts who insisted > on out of the way locations. May we see that analysis not later than the > plenary in Stockholm? I don't think we've ever had hosts who have "insisted on out of the way locations," but I agree that such an analysis would be good to present. Ole > > john > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf