this late but I thought I'd comment on one part of it.
On 3/20/13 3:36 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I think it is mostly market forces and historical reasons, and the development of the IETF to focus on more particular core aspects of the Internet (like routing) as opposed to what the small shops might work on.
But I think we are missing a bit of the point in this discussion. I do not feel that we need to prove we are somehow "no worse" than industry average. The point is that *if* we had more diversity along many of the discussed lines, we'd be far better off. For instance, having people from multiple organisations provide input to a last would be preferable to just a few. Similarly with the other dimensions of diversity. When I talked to some of the ISOC fellows last week, I realised peering is very different on different continents.
Different doesn't generally mean good, in the peering case.
There are plenty of examples of monopoly PTTs or regulators engaging in
behavior that impacts the usability of or availability of traffic
exchange, there's all sorts of market failures, and there's deliberately
uncompetitive practices from some of the participants. so when we look
at the diversity of experience for network operators not all the
diversity is a happy place.
Even if there may be less economic activity on networking on those continents, it would be good for us to understand the real situations around the world, as opposed to thinking the whole world is like where we live. Diversity = good in most cases, and increasing that goodness should be the goal.
Jari