>>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. I think different is good and bad news (who is responsible?), but mostly good to be detected, and hopefully corrected. It is bad for IETF to loose participation just because experience levels or peering are different. > > 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. All diverse participants are good for IETF even if majority were uncompetitive, because no one is competitive to future experience. In history some scholars tried to confense the majority of their theories but were only understood in future because different minds. Some countries are in past experience and some are in present and some may be in future, but the IETF it is for all countries and it needs to make fast communication between future and past, or make availability for past components to communicate with future and verse versa, May be the solution can be if participants got into *faster speed of light* [RFC6921] [1] to make all countries participation in IETF received at right times or at the similar level of experience, that will make communicating with the IETF experiences easier, [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg78376.html AB