On 10/11/2012 04:11, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 11/9/12 8:00 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> Brian,
>>
>> Your comment just reinforce my perception that the IETF is not
>> interested in being an global organization of standards.
Arturo: I think I didn't express myself well. As others have said since,
IETF standards development *is* global and that is one reason why
participation, and consensus-forming, via email is so important. IETF
standards are global too - despite the historical ASCII bias, there is
nothing regional about what we do. Our efforts at internationalisation
are aimed at maintaining that global approach at the same time as
supporting non-ASCII content. Where we happen to meet has little
to do with that, but a lot to do with cost, convenience, and travel
optimisation.
I have twice, in different places, been part of failed attempts to
host IETF meetings. Those failures were nothing to do with prejudice
against the locations and everything to do with cost, convenience
and travel. That's life.
>>
>> People is asking how to evolve the IETF, well, one possibility is to
>> start thinking global and to reach more people outside the common
>> venues. It is more expensive, more complex, yes. But in my opinion is
>> worthy if we really want to show that we care about the multistakeholder
>> model that we preach.
> Multistakeholder is a loaded term from other contexts. IETF participants
> whether they attend the meeting or not are self-selected.
Exactly. I applaud the efforts of ISOC, the regional registries, and others
(going right back to the old Landweber meetings many years ago) to
encourage people from all over the world to join the Internet technical
community, but that is quite different from the stakeholder dialogue.
Brian
>
> I have some thoughts about interim meetings as an outreach tool in draft
> form and I would appreciate some feeback on those sections.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-jaeggli-interim-observations-03.txt
>> Hard times may come, some people will ask why the Internet standards
>> are just developed in some places and will challenge us. Frankly, what I
>> see is that we do not care.
> Why shouldn't standards be developed elsewhere (oddly enough, they are)?
> IETF participants have never had a monopoly on either need or good ideas.
>
> Regards, as On 09/11/2012 19:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>