On 5/30/13, George Michaelson <ggm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At risk of alienating my comrades from locations seeking to attract an IETF > for local development/inclusiveness and the like reasons, I think John gets > to the nub of the matter: the wider community cost, borne by all attendees > as a 'silent tax' is really very high, for this outcome. We need to be > explicit this is what we're doing. The ISOC grants are probably a more cost > effective way of boosting participation from outlier economies right now. Yes, let's be explicit, what is the meeting values or goals? Why we are considering cost now when we are looking into the IETF future challenges, or when we are looking into developing IETF activities (i.e. better outcome change) > So lets be explicit. This is a standards-setting body, which is discussing > outreach, inclusiveness, wider participation outcomes, and the cost > consequences on attendance where the core motivation is standards setting. Yes, let's be explicit, we need to discuss the IETF meeting not discuss the IETF business, IMHO, meetings are for establishing better connection between the IETF and the Internet-Community. IMHO, IETF is not just a standards-setting body, please read what it says about itself: IETF> The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet. IETF> The IETF is a Large open international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the and the smooth operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual. AB> so interested individuals are welcomed in the IETF meetings and business. > If the core motivations are changing, maybe that drives things in a > different way? > Don't forget that the Internet is changing and that the Internet Community is changing, the IETF SHOULD follow thoes changes :-) AB