<div dir="ltr">Estimados,<div> Mi visión y experiencia es que en general, las empresas</div><div>locales y las filiales de las empresas internacionales en América Latina </div><div>están orientadas a los servicios de telecomunicaciones usando tecnología,<br></div><div>por lo que posiblemente el interés en la estandarización no sea muy </div><div>grande para obtener un auspicio. Sin embargo, veo posible</div><div>que las empresas internacionales auspicien si el contacto proviene desde</div><div>su casa matriz o desde alguno de sus centros de desarrollo, interesados</div><div>en fomentar la participación en la IETF a partir del valor que puedan ver en el perfil</div><div>de quien va a participar. Incluso, para hacerlo más permanente, se podría</div><div>acordar un programa de becas concursable. </div><div> Saludos,</div><div><br></div><div> Diego Dujovne </div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 14 juin 2019 à 13:38, Azael Fernandez Alcantara <<a href="mailto:afaza@unam.mx">afaza@unam.mx</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Buen Dia,<br>
<br>
Tratando de seguir lo comentado, si me parece necesario haya inscripcion o <br>
"fees" reducidas para posibles participantes de nuestra region y otras <br>
como Africa.<br>
<br>
Pero no "gratis", al menos al principio, ya despues con patrocinios <br>
nacionales podria ser, como el apoyo de los becados en las mismas <br>
reuniones de la IETF, para que se valore la importancia y no se deje de <br>
apoyar la mision misma de las organizaciones citadas.<br>
<br>
De los sitios comentados, por ejemplo Cancun, solo por ser lugar creado <br>
para el turismo y es atractivo, (por cierto en Mexico sale muchas veces <br>
mas caro volar a Cancun desde otro lugar de Mexico, que ir a EUA en <br>
avion), pero yo seria de la opinion que fuera en las ciudades donde hay <br>
personas de las empresas , universidades e independientes que pueden <br>
aportar y con conocimiento que seria productivo, y por tanto seria mas <br>
facil aun su participacion (Cd. de Mexico, Guadalajara, Monterrey, etc) al <br>
justificarse mejor lo que realicen en sus instituciones.<br>
<br>
Con gusto me sumo para buscar posibles patrocinadores o despertar aun mas <br>
el interes.<br>
<br>
<br>
SALUDOS<br>
________________________________<br>
UNAM<br>
Azael<br>
<br>
___________________________<br>
Mensaje enviado sin acentos<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via LACNOG wrote:<br>
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> El 13/6/19 23:01, "Carlos M. Martinez" <<a href="mailto:carlosm3011@gmail.com" target="_blank">carlosm3011@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Hola Jordi,<br>
> <br>
> Yo no discuto que sea deseable que el costo de la inscripción baje. De hecho, a mi presupuesto le vendría<br>
> bárbaro.<br>
> <br>
> Comprendido, pensé que lo rebatías !<br>
> <br>
> Lo que digo es que históricamente las registration fees han sido uno de los elementos que financian al IETF y<br>
> que el PIR lo que hace es cubrir el faltante.<br>
> <br>
> Así es hasta ahora, pero creo que el LLC es una oportunidad para cambiar el balance. El PIR tiene exceso de<br>
> dinero y el IETF es la mejor manera de emplearlo.<br>
> <br>
> El mismo IETF ha sido reacio a recibir más ayuda del PIR/ISOC y de hecho, ahora de la mano del LLC creado en<br>
> el marco de las IASA 2.0 van a buscar otros sponsors.<br>
> <br>
> Creo que debemos cambiar esa reacción contraria, ahora que existe el LLC tiene sentido, porque todos los que<br>
> buscamos sponsors sabemos que es algo muy difícil (yo tengo el dilema/problema de que no encuentro sponsor<br>
> para el social del IETF en Madrid, y habla de cantidades ridículas comparadas con lo que cuesta patrocinar el<br>
> evento de IETF). Además, creo que es poco “bueno” que sean empresas del sector las que patrocinen “mas” el<br>
> IETF. No veo con buenos ojos que un Cisco o un Huawei (por poner dos ejemplos) pueden tener aun “mas”<br>
> influencia, no tanto porque esa influencia sea real, sino por lo que parezca (nos guste o no “no basta con<br>
> ser bueno hay que parecerlo” – supongo que se entiende el dicho).<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Quizás en este último punto nosotros como comunidad podemos llegar a colaborar, tratando de buscar que<br>
> organizaciones de nuestra región o al menos de nuestros ámbitos de influencia puede ser sponsor del IETF.<br>
> <br>
> Sería buenísimo, pero no se si es real. Además, podría ser bueno atar eso a que esos fondos se empleen en<br>
> organizar IETFs en la región. Yo tengo identificados lugares que pueden alojarlo y así lo he comentado varias<br>
> veces con el grupo que se encarga de localizar lugares para los eventos:<br>
><br>
> * Buenos Aires<br>
> * Panamá<br>
> * Cancún<br>
> * Sao Paulo<br>
> <br>
> Seguramente hay algún otro, y las barreras poco a poco irán cediendo para que ocurra.<br>
> <br>
> Cuando yo hablaba en los años 2005-2007 (aprox) en los plenarios de hacer IETFs en LAC o en Africa, casi me<br>
> insultaba y me tiraban piedras … y nos costo con el primero en Buenos Aires, pero salió bien y ahí esta la<br>
> prueba.<br>
> <br>
> Lo que si me parece es que solo quejarnos de algo no ayuda a que ese algo se solucione, tenemos que ser más<br>
> activos en la búsqueda de esas soluciones.<br>
> <br>
> Lo dicho, yo voy a pensármelo un poco y proponer algo al LLC.<br>
> <br>
> S2<br>
> <br>
> /Carlos<br>
> <br>
> On 13 Jun 2019, at 17:55, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via LACNOG wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hola Carlos,<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Si y no …<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> ISOC se hizo cargo del PIR (.org), con el objetivo principal de garantizar el soporte de IETF.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Y el .org, genera mucho mas dinero del que IETF necesita.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Creo que sería deseable que se baje mucho la cuota de participación, quizas unos 100 USD, porque<br>
> los que nos lo pagamos de nuestro bolsillo, nos facilitaría mucho las cosas.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Cuesta tanto la cuota de registro (800 USD mas o menos), como el vuelo, según donde sea. A veces<br>
> el vuelo a mi me sale mucho mas barato incluso. Me parece una exageración.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> No lo pondría gratuito para evitar que alguien vaya “para pegarse un viaje y curiosear”, aunque<br>
> dudo que eso ocurriera mucho, excepto participantes locales, y si son pocos, no pasa nada.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Quizas un sistema que permita que los empleados de empresas que facturen mas de “x” millones de<br>
> dolares (que son las que mas beneficio tienen de hecho, gracias a la contribución de todos al<br>
> IETF), paguen incluso mas de 1.000 USD, y en cambio las instituciones sin ánimo de lucro,<br>
> gobiernos o las empresas que facturen menos de esa cantidad “x”, paguen esos 100 USD.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> De hecho, me voy a plantear este sistema o algo parecido y se lo voy a plantear al Board del IETF<br>
> LLC.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Saludos,<br>
><br>
> Jordi<br>
><br>
> @jordipalet<br>
><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> El 13/6/19 21:29, "LACNOG en nombre de Carlos Marcelo Martinez Cagnazzo" <<a href="mailto:lacnog-bounces@lacnic.net" target="_blank">lacnog-bounces@lacnic.net</a> en<br>
> nombre de <a href="mailto:carlosm3011@gmail.com" target="_blank">carlosm3011@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Y cuál sería tu propuesta Fernando? Entiendo la preocupación pero también entiendo de qué el IETF se<br>
> tiene que financiar de alguna forma.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> No digo que no puedan existir otros mecanismos, pero si creo que hay que justamente buscarlos y<br>
> proponerlos.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> S2<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Carlos<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> via Newton Mail<br>
> <br>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:10pm, Fernando Gont <<a href="mailto:fgont@si6networks.com" target="_blank">fgont@si6networks.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
> Yo plantie esta inquietud en latinoamerica, junto con otras tantas.<br>
><br>
> Nadie me dio ni pelota.<br>
><br>
> EN fin...<br>
> <br>
><br>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------<br>
> Subject: Re: ietf meeting fees<br>
> Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 13:45:00 -0400<br>
> From: John C Klensin <<a href="mailto:john-ietf@jck.com" target="_blank">john-ietf@jck.com</a>><br>
> To: Michael StJohns <<a href="mailto:mstjohns@comcast.net" target="_blank">mstjohns@comcast.net</a>>, <a href="mailto:ietf@ietf.org" target="_blank">ietf@ietf.org</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
> --On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 21:29 -0400 Michael StJohns<br>
> <<a href="mailto:mstjohns@comcast.net" target="_blank">mstjohns@comcast.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On 5/28/2019 6:49 PM, Keith Moore wrote:<br>
> >> On 5/28/19 4:35 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:<br>
> >...<br>
> > IMO - it's not inertia as much as reality. In the current<br>
> > "we don't have members" and "we don't charge for standards"<br>
> > model, we have three funding sources: meeting fees, sponsor<br>
> > contributions (both meeting and sustaining), and checks from<br>
> > the parents ... I mean ISOC contributions. We could<br>
> > become more like other standards organizations by charging for<br>
> > either or both of membership (student, researcher, personal,<br>
> > corporate etc) and copies of the standards, but I grok that<br>
> > either of those changes could change the fundamentals of the<br>
> > IETF in a way that could make us *less* viable or<br>
> > relevant.<br>
> >...<br>
><br>
> Mike,<br>
><br>
> I mostly agree, but have a different take on this, involving two<br>
> other pieces of the same reality. As participation costs [1]<br>
> rise, it becomes harder for people without enterprise (profit or<br>
> non-profit) support to attend f2f meetings. For those of us<br>
> with healthy consulting practices or significant<br>
> non-occupational income, retirement income, or other reserves,<br>
> attendance becomes a matter of personal or business priorities.<br>
> For people operating as individuals and closer to the edge, the<br>
> choice may be one of feasibility. As a personal example, I've<br>
> got some health issues that drive up minimum costs, but there<br>
> have been years when I was attending substantially all meetings<br>
> f2f in which the annual IETF bill came to USD 30K- 40K. Even if<br>
> one can get by at half or a third of that by cutting various<br>
> costs, we still are not talking about chump change.<br>
><br>
> It would be good to have actual numbers, although I'm not<br>
> confident that many of us would want to disclose the details of<br>
> our support situations to the community (or even the<br>
> Secretariat), but my strong suspicion is the percentage of<br>
> people actually participating as individuals -- on our own<br>
> wallets with no enterprise/organization support -- is dropping<br>
> relative to those who can depend on organizational money for<br>
> travel support, registration fees, and maybe even a salary while<br>
> at IETF or doing IETF work. To the extent that is the case, it<br>
> turns the model of participation by individuals into a<br>
> convenient myth.<br>
> Of course, organizations differ hugely about what, if anything,<br>
> people they support to participate in the IETF are expected to<br>
> do in return. We've seen the full spectrum from "go there, do<br>
> your thing, and don't pay any attention to any relationships to<br>
> your day job" to clear corporate policies about positions<br>
> employees are expected to take or avoid in the IETF, rewards for<br>
> particular IETF-related actions or accomplishments, and so on.<br>
> However, I suggest that even the potential for a company to hold<br>
> people accountable for what they do in the IETF makes those<br>
> people different from our traditional story (myth ?) about<br>
> individual participation.<br>
><br>
> That myth is, IMO, dangerous for at least three reasons. One is<br>
> that reasoning from the assumption that changing a model that<br>
> doesn't exist in practice would fundamentally change the IETF<br>
> may get in the way or clear thinking about alternatives,<br>
> including financial alternatives. Second, noting that<br>
> participating as an IESG, IAB, etc., member is even more<br>
> expensive than participating as an ordinary contributor, if our<br>
> decision bodies come to be dominated by people with strong<br>
> organizational support, sensitivity to cost and related issues<br>
> by those who actually make the decisions may be reduced.<br>
> Finally, many of our policies and procedures are designed around<br>
> the assumption of individual participation and the related<br>
> assumption of no coordinated organizational influence. Should<br>
> the IETF, as a standards developer ever get itself embroiled in<br>
> claims that particular standards decisions were made because of<br>
> undue organizational influences and that those decisions<br>
> distorted the market for certain products, our failure to have<br>
> policies and procedures in place to control that risk -- and our<br>
> presumed claim that we don't need them because everyone<br>
> participates as an individual would be more likely to fail a<br>
> laugh test the more unbalanced the participant profile gets.<br>
><br>
> >...<br>
> > So in the current model we can a) charge higher meeting fees,<br>
> > b) get more sponsorship, and c) ask ISOC for a bigger check.<br>
> > None of these wells are bottomless. We could reduce<br>
> > expenditures - but what would you cut? Meeting related<br>
> > munchies and internet? Remote access bandwidth? Staff costs?<br>
> > Tools support? Standards production?<br>
> >...<br>
><br>
> Well, I don't know how much it would help and we have built<br>
> systems that would cause it to take a long time for any changes<br>
> to show significant effects (maybe another symptom of the<br>
> "individual participation" myth), but we could also think about<br>
> some ways to cut costs and how much they would save. As<br>
> examples,<br>
> (i) Raise the threshold for creating a new WG, keeping a WG<br>
> going, and/or giving WGs meeting time slots, or restrict the<br>
> number of WGs to the point that we could reduce the number of<br>
> days the IETF meets and/or the number of meeting rooms needed in<br>
> parallel. Reducing the number of days meetings last would<br>
> reduce the number of hotel nights people had to pay for and<br>
> perhaps even the number of hotel nights for staff the IETF,<br>
> ISOC, etc., needed to pay for. Reducing the number of parallel<br>
> meeting rooms required might broaden the range of facilities we<br>
> could consider and thereby permit lower-cost meeting site<br>
> choices.<br>
> (ii) Consider whether, with increasing use of interim meetings,<br>
> we could reduce the number of all-IETF meetings from three to<br>
> two. This would presumably reduce annual travel, hotel, and<br>
> other costs for both participants and staff and might help<br>
> broaden participation by allowing at least some participants to<br>
> spend a larger fraction of the year at their day jobs.<br>
><br>
> (iii) Push back aggressively on small group meetings in parallel<br>
> with IETF. IIR, we used to require between three and four small<br>
> meeting rooms: IAB and IESG (sometimes sharing one dedicated<br>
> space), a work area for the Secretariat, and maybe something<br>
> else like the Nomcom. Anything else was required to take it<br>
> elsewhere or meet in ordinary hotel rooms (or rooms of members<br>
> of the leadership who were given complementary upgrades to<br>
> suites under hotel contracts); we even aggressively discouraged<br>
> other groups or company gatherings in the meeting hotel. I<br>
> gather the number of such spaces that are "required" has<br>
> increased very significantly. Given the complexities of hotel<br>
> contracts I am not sure that cutting the number back down would<br>
> lower costs for a given facility, but such a decrease would<br>
> increase the number of facilities that could be considered,<br>
> leaving us less at the mercy of facilities large enough to<br>
> accommodate our increasing needs and more able to negotiate more<br>
> attractive facility contracts.<br>
><br>
> I note that each of the above has been proposed in the past, at<br>
> least the first to the point of I-Ds proposing different<br>
> variations. What they have in common is that the IESG (and/or<br>
> IASA) have been unwilling to take them up. There are others<br>
> that might be worth considering although I'd predict they would<br>
> be even less likely to go anywhere:<br>
><br>
> (iv) Push back on IAB, IESG, or other "retreats" that require<br>
> additional travel, sometimes four weeks a year away from home<br>
> rather than three, and staff support and travel. These<br>
> increase costs and decrease the number and diversity of people<br>
> who can volunteer to serve in leadership positions. Sometimes<br>
> they are worth it, but the community's uncritical acceptance of<br>
> them as regular events may imply that we are not paying enough<br>
> attention to cost control (or that those will large travel and<br>
> expense accounts don't notice the costs or don't care).<br>
><br>
> (v) And, yes, we could attack the cookie budget by, e.g.,<br>
> creating an extra charge for snack breaks. Given the nature of<br>
> hotel contracts, it is not clear how much that would save, but<br>
> making it negotiable would increase our ability to control costs<br>
> and promote competition among candidate facilities.<br>
><br>
> Those are just examples. If we were serious about cost<br>
> reductions, we could probably come up with others. I suggest<br>
> that "we" are no serious and that, in some respects, the<br>
> increase in remote participation has reduced the incentives to<br>
> control costs because someone who can't afford to travel to all<br>
> f2f meetings just stops doing so. However, that seems to me to<br>
> be reducing the diversity of the IETF's leadership, making the<br>
> idea of participation as individuals more or a fiction, and<br>
> turning the IETF more into a body where participation and<br>
> leadership is by large and well-funded organizations even though<br>
> we keep trying to hide and deny that.<br>
><br>
> >>> If you are arguing for actions that reduce or tend to reduce<br>
> >>> or have the potential to limit the intake of funds from<br>
> >>> that model, I suggest you also come up with a more than<br>
> >>> handwaving proposal for how to replace those funds or<br>
> >>> explain which functions supported by the IETF we're going<br>
> >>> to eliminate to cover such shortfall.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Perhaps we should also require more than handwaving reasons<br>
> >> for staying the same. :-)<br>
> ><br>
> > See above - it's really just a question of who we want to be<br>
> > and what we're willing to pay to become that. If you can<br>
> > tell me who we want to be, I can help you with figuring out<br>
> > what it's going to cost in time, reputation, angst, etc.<br>
> >...<br>
><br>
> To turn this around a bit, maybe we should accept that who we<br>
> claim to be is getting less true even if has yet to disappear<br>
> entirely. If we want to be a body that matches our claims, we<br>
> need to figure out what we are willing to pay (in cost<br>
> reductions, changes in workload, and adjustments to leadership<br>
> and overhead structures) to get that back and retain it. I am<br>
> not holding my breath.<br>
><br>
> best,<br>
> john<br>
> <br>
><br>
> [1] That is costs as seen by those individual participants,<br>
> i.e., not just the registration fee but the sum of that, plus<br>
> travel expenses (air, hotel, meals, visa application fees and<br>
> associated travel when necessary, etc.), maybe plus lost income<br>
> or other opportunity costs when our individual sources of income<br>
> or other support make that relevant.<br>
> <br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> LACNOG mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net" target="_blank">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br>
> Cancelar suscripcion: <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog</a><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________ LACNOG mailing list <a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net" target="_blank">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a> Cancelar suscripcion:<br>
> <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> **********************************************<br>
> IPv4 is over<br>
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
> <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
> The IPv6 Company<br>
> <br>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information<br>
> is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty<br>
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if<br>
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense.<br>
> If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the<br>
> contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will<br>
> be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this<br>
> communication and delete it.<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> LACNOG mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net" target="_blank">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br>
> Cancelar suscripcion: <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> **********************************************<br>
> IPv4 is over<br>
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
> <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
> The IPv6 Company<br>
> <br>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is<br>
> intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized<br>
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including<br>
> attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended<br>
> recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,<br>
> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense,<br>
> so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>_____________________________________________<br>
Ietf-lac mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ietf-lac@lacnog.org" target="_blank">Ietf-lac@lacnog.org</a><br>
Cancelar suscripcion: <a href="mailto:ietf-lac-unsubscribe@lacnog.org" target="_blank">ietf-lac-unsubscribe@lacnog.org</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>DIEGO DUJOVNE<br>Profesor Asociado<br>Escuela de Informática y Telecomunicaciones<br>Facultad de Ingeniería - Universidad Diego Portales - Chile<br><a href="http://www.ingenieria.udp.cl" target="_blank">www.ingenieria.udp.cl</a><br>(56 2) 676 8125<br></div></div></div></div></div>