On Aug 26, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > Thank you for providing this but this data seems to support something closer to 2-1-1 than 1-1-1. How do you get to the 1-1-1 conclusion because I can't figure out how to get there with this data. It seems tome the ratio of NA To Asia is closer to 2 than 1 any way you slice it. I think there are three aspects in play. You are correct, the numbers today are reported to be roughly 1.7:1:1, or 2:1:1. There is also a growth rate. In recent meetings, we have seen growth from asia. I suspect that a more nuanced analysis would have this as "1.7 and shrinking : 1 and stable : 1 and stable". I think there is also a political objective of reaching 1:1:1; Harald took that as a target under his tenure, and backed off when we had some financial difficulties with Asian meetings. I would support 2:1:1 for the present, with an intention to review that in 2-3 years. By the way, please don't take that to mean "every other meeting will be NA, with the meetings in between alternating between Europe and ANZ/Asia". Also, don't take that to mean that meetings the IAOC has nailed down will be adjusted to conform to that schedule. Take it as meaning that what I just said is an objective (if that objective is agreed to), but will be adjusted according to the realities that the IAOC is presented with, and the policy will be applied (if it is agreed to) to meetings we are planning in the future but haven't yet nailed down. I'm not on the IAOC now, but was for quite a while. While on the IAOC, we had one Asian meeting, in Hiroshima, five in Europe, and eleven in North America. We were trying for 1:2:3, which would have been more like 3:6:9 than 1:5:11. Without going into details, we really tried to achieve that, and things didn't work out the way we would have liked. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf