Arturo,
On 09/11/2012 23:26, Arturo Servin wrote:
> So basically the IETF is roaming most of the time in North America,
> sometimes in Europe and once in a while in Asia. Is that how the IETF
> thinks about the global development of Internet standards?
No. The criterion has always been to hold meetings where they can be
most effective in making the Internet work better - as far as a
standards organisation can do that. That means choosing places where
a meeting can be run effectively and a reasonably high proportion
of those actively participating can afford to attend. As participation
in the IETF has evolved, so has the geographical part of site selection
policy evolved, as Fred described. For example, the attendance data will
tell you why the policy has recently led to two meetings in China.
I think you'll find the policy is different for more operational
meetings, which as far as I can tell have been taking place in Asia,
Africa and Latin America for years. Those meetings have different
criteria for their part in making the Internet work better.
>
> No wonder why some countries in Africa and Latin America are
> approaching ITU.
ITU-T does a great deal of its standards-making in Geneva. The meetings
in other areas tend have a different purpose, as do many ISOC activities.
> If the IETF really wants to make a change we need to stop thinking that
> North-America/Europe = Global.
I think nobody has thought that for at least 10 years (IETF 54).
Brian
>
> Regards,
> as
>
> On 09/11/2012 16:05, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 2012, at 12:28 PM, SM wrote:
>>
>>> At 06:31 09-11-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>>>> I am newcomer and not able to attend because most of meeting in
>>>> America instead of Europe.
>>> Most of the money comes from North Americans. There is some historical information in RFC 3717.
>> I'd suggest a more thorough analysis.
>>
>> Data from https://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html and
>> https://www.ietf.org/meeting/past.html. Take a look at the attached
>> spreadsheet.
>>
>> IETF demographics and meeting location policy have changed over time.
>>
>> Originally, in 1986, not only was the IETF entirely American, it was
>> entirely US Government, and nobody else was invited. That changed pretty
>> quickly, but the community attending remained predominantly US for some
>> time. So meetings before 1993 all occurred in North America, and if
>> truth be told, the reason that the meeting in August 1990 was outside
>> the US was that it had been intended to be in Seattle, the host had a
>> problem, and UBC came to the rescue.
>>
>> Starting in 1993, we noted that the demographics had changed; about one
>> in six IETF participants came from Europe. So, we tried to place one
>> meeting in six in Europe. We had a small group attending from Australia,
>> and in 2000 had a meeting there in recognition of the fact. But by that
>> time, we were starting to have a more significant attendance from Asia,
>> notably Japan. So we changed policy to trying to position three meetings
>> in six in North America, two in Europe, and one in Asia+Australia. And
>> starting (IIRC) in 2005, we simplified that policy to having one meeting
>> each year in Asia, Europe, and North America.
>>
>> Regarding that last policy, we have unfortunately had some problems; one
>> meeting that we intended to have in Asia recently fell through, and we
>> had to move it somewhere, and in another recent case the Asian venues we
>> were looking at essentially priced themselves out of the market. Our
>> Asian friends told us that a meeting in Vancouver was an acceptable
>> compromise; getting a visa wasn't as hard for them as a US visa, and it
>> was not too hard to get to. So we have had at least two meetings in
>> Vancouver that we fully intended to have in Asia.
>>
>> Since 2004, we have in fact had about 1/3 of our meetings in Europe. If
>> anyone has been shortchanged, it has been our Asian friends. "Where the
>> money came from" was an issue in the 1990's - we had to assume that a
>> meeting outside the US would be financially short due to US participants
>> not attending; in 2000, the meeting in San Diego had 2810 people and the
>> meeting in Pittsburg 2344, but the meeting in Adelaide had 1431. By
>> 2004, distribution had become roughly even - meetings that year had
>> right around 1300 attendees regardless of location. The issues are now
>> related to success in finding affordable venues.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>