On 11/15/12 8:47 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: > I do believe that regions wanting to have an IETF meeting should also > give back in terms of active participation, I agree with that. I really think there's an enormous disconnect here. I'm really unclear on how this is supposed to work: if someone thinks they need to attend a meeting in order to participate in the work and there's only one meeting in their region in some large number of years, it's difficult to see how that one meeting is going to lead to active participation. Arguing that IETF openness is a function of meeting location is totally missing the point. Clearly we could be making that point better, but it seems to me that privileging meetings as a more important part of the process of producing documents very clearly works against an open participation model. The main benefit, it seems to me, is not geographic but that we are woefully short on participation by operators and that many of the folk in developing or less affluent countries work for operators, registrars, regulators, etc., and we may benefit from one-off participation from them. Melinda