The IAOC has put forward two reasons for having an IETF meeting in South
America:
Encouraging growing participation will help strengthen the Internet,
further encourage participation from those areas that will see the
most growth in the coming years, and will help advance the IETF in
political and international circles which is becoming more of an
imperative.
That is:
1. Promoting regional participation from Latin America
There certainly are under-represented constituencies that we should
find ways to bring to the IETF in greater numbers. Residents of Latin
America certainly qualify.
However a number of comments on the ietf list have observed that our
conducting a single meeting in South America is unlikely to effect
greater Latin participation in the IETF. I agree, it won't, and frankly
I think it shouldn't, because it's a expensive and possibly risky Grand
Gesture rather than a substantive change.
If we want great regional participation, let's look for ways to
achieve that -- for /all/ under-represented constituencies. I suspect
that what's needed will be similar for all of them.
2. Counteracting some type of IETF 'deficiency' in political and
international circles.
As stated, that's a pretty vague concern, although yes, we sometimes
hear criticisms around the IETF's regional choices. However the nature
of exchanges like these are -- as correctly characterized by the IAOC --
political, and they are rarely assuaged by letting the critics dictate
organizational decision-making, such as where to send 1200 participants
for a mission-critical meeting.
Put simply: we shouldn't let political critics set the agenda for
IETF strategic planning. They'll just find something else to hassle us
about, since their political goal is criticizing the IETF, not improving
it. Again as others have noted, one meeting in the region won't be
enough, and then there are the other regions we don't go to, and there
will be something else, and something more after that.
But wait. There's a bigger issue being missed: The basis of the
criticism is fundamentally specious! The /reality/ is that the IETF is
dramatically /more/ open in its participation and its documents than
nearly any other international standards group, most of whom have
nation- or vendor-based membership fees and restrictions, with little or
no participation via email or remote attendance.
Again, don't let political exercises determine the IETF's public
message. The solid reality of extreme IETF global inclusiveness is real
and basic. Those who want to hear that message will. Those who don't
won't be quieted by a stray meeting in the southern half of South America.
Of course we need to do more and better at being inclusive. The
nascent diversity effort speaks to the IETF's own concern about that.
As for some other points in the IAOC message...
On 5/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
There has been a consistent level of IETF participation from South and Central
America, and it has been growing since IETF82. The data on this is posted at
http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Regional-Attendance-00.pdf.
From the cited table, we see that Latin American meeting attendance
grew from <1% to 2%, over a bit more than one year. However note that
it showed a marked /decrease/ in the preceding year.
As statistical analyses goes, making a business claim of increased
attendance, based on percentages that small and with a pattern that
contradictory, is extremely risky.
It also means 98% of attendees at the venue will /not/ be from the
region, rather than the usual 1/3 - 2/3 for our usual meeting venues.
That is, this meeting will be disproportionately out of the way for
attendees.
IETF standards are also made more robust when all perspectives
are represented during their development.
The IETF's primary working venue is mailing lists. Are participants
from that region having singular difficulties participating in mailing
lists?
There were a few notes about this on the ietf list.
I'd summarize it as suggesting that we need more effort at making
mailing list participation easier for non-native English speakers, for
those new to IETF culture, and for those having an upbringing that is a
poor match against the IETF's gruff, aggressive debating style. But, of
course, these are general issues about the IETF that also have come up
before. And these are what we need to address.
Things to consider are that it will be a long trip for the majority of IETFers and the
air fares are more expensive (about 10% to 20% higher than average), though
restaurants are less expensive. This would be a case where most IETFers would
bear more travel pain and expense.
The cost appears to be significantly worse than that. Presumably the
referenced average is spread across current planned averages of
within-region and 'distant' region meetings, with distant regions
typically being more expensive and of course incurring longer travel
times.
This one to South America will be distant for 98% of attendees. So more
attendees than usual will be spending 'distant' travel money and time.
From the table below, a rough guess is that the incremental per-person
cost of this meeting's air travel is arguably around, US$700(!)
Multiply that by 1175 attendees -- assuming an average total of 1200.
That's an incremental community cost of roughly one million dollars.
And travel times to Buenos Aires are much longer than all but the most
distant venues, probably adding 1/2 - 1 day each way. So attendees are
likely to be away from work and family for 1-2 days longer.
And for those who answer the questionnaire, saying that they are likely
or very likely to go to a meeting in Buenos Aires, one issue to consider
carefully is the likelihood of management approval for these extra
costs, or at least the overall effect on your annual travel budget.
Adelaide was fun, but it was not justified in terms of either of the
rationales put forward in the IAOC note. It also was a long time ago --
the Internet has changed, the world's economies have changed, and
companies allocation of funds have changed.
I like visiting South America. But IETF meetings do not have tourism as
a goal. So yes, I'm sure those who go will "enjoy" the city; but again,
that's not stated purpose of choosing venues.
Again, yes we want greater IETF participation of all regions around the
globe, but this meeting venue won't change things.
If we are serious about wanting more participation from
under-represented regions, then let's attack that issue seriously and
substantively, rather than with an expensive marketing show.
For example, $1M/year could fund quite a lot of regional IETF outreach
-- perhaps as an extension to the existing, excellent ISOC global effort
-- and perhaps even better remote participation capabilities...
d/
Orbitz coach prices for late October 2013, US$
==============================================
Origin BUE Frankfurt Tokyo Atlanta
--------- ---- --------- ----- -------
SFO 1400 1200 1100 350
Amsterdam 1600 150 800 1100
Taipei 2100 900 400 1500
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net