On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, John C Klensin wrote: > > Ole, the obvious question here can be stated more or less as > follows: > > (1) The sponsor wants to expose a community in which they are > interested to our work. This was the case in Japan, yes. But I will remind you that we already have a "newcomers" program in place, and I do not believe that the event in question caused any extra burden on anyone. (It could be argued that the host SHOULD have done something special for this group, and maybe they did, I am not sure, but that's a different matter). > > (2) We have little expectation that the community intended to be > exposed will turn into long-term active/contributing participants > and few (if any) of them are active, contributing, but non-attending > participants already. This was not known, but in any case it's not the only consideration. Knowledge of what WE do can benefit THEM and benefit US in the long run. The example cited was the Japanese auto industry which, like many other industries, is embarking on a path of "Internet stuff" and it would probably be a good idea if they coordinated some of this work with us, don't you think? If they are putting IP in your next car it's probably a good idea that it's our kind of IP if you know what I mean. > > (3) Accommodating the sponsor's desires increases costs (travel time > and expense, effective meeting length, costs of trying to educate > those who won't come back) to regular, active, contributing > participants. That is independent of the costs to the IASA, which > presumably do not increase and, depending on how one counts would go > down by the amount of sponsorship (assuming the sponsor were to > condition sponsorship on that "exposure" arrangement). If the > sponsor merely expresses a preference but will sponsor one way or > the other, the parameters of the equation may become more clear. The day pass experiment was started in Hiroshima, but there is no connection between a particular choice of location and this experiment, other than the fact that it happened for the first time in Japan. As has been explained many times on this list, Hiroshima was NOT chosen because the host had a strong desire to go there, but rather because it was one of a small number of AVAILABLE locations at the time when the host stepped in to rescue the meeting. I am willing to bet you a very nice bottle of sake that next time we go to Japan we will be back in Yokohama (and I will arrange another organ demo of Fisk Opus 110). Obviously, the day-pass experiment had to apply to everyone, not just the "target group" in this particular case. > > > Now I don't assume that the IAOC has made these decision > incorrectly. But I would like to understand the reasoning that, > it would appear, has the regular and active participants paying > for the education and/or entertainment of tourists. See my response to (1). It's already happening and has been happening for some time. This education is a) not related to meeting location and b) is not directly linked to the day-pass experiment other than in the obvious way in the case of Japan. (Your Japanese boss is less likely to let you go and observe a meeting for a whole week as compared to one day). > > regards, > john > > Ole _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf