[LAC-TF] [lacnog] ietf meeting fees
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Tue Jun 25 14:44:51 -03 2019
Hola Azael,
He mirado ahora mismo esos hoteles en la web que te mencioné y en googlemaps, y parece que el Sheraton puede cumplirlos (aunque esta fuera del límite 20 en las salas para oficinas y reuniones de 12-20 personas en formato U o Board).
Camino Real Polanco, sale como opción, pero no cumple por la ubicación y distancia a otros hoteles, restaurantes y "grocery stores" (5 minutos caminando máximo).
El World Trace Center no parece un hotel. Si es un centro de convenciones, no cumple, por las distancias a hoteles.
Obviamente hay muchos otros requisitos, pero son ya mucho mas complicados de evaluar (seguridad, nivel de crimen, vuelos directos, etc.). Por eso se rechazó Sao Paulo si no mal recuerdo. Todo eso se suele evaluar con la visita "on-site", salvo que, de antemano, descarten algún país o ciudad en concreto.
Todos los otros que mencionas en Guadalajara, Monterrey, etc., no aparecen con hoteles que cumplan distancia.
De todos modos yo solo estoy hablando aquí de mi experiencia con España y con los debates de todo esto y documentos que se han generado en IETF durante años. Yo no decido! Y al contrario me encantaría que se hicieran mas eventos del IETF en LAC aunque me vuelvan a tirar piedras en el plenario y en la lista por proponerlo o apoyarlo.
Si creéis que hay interés en involucrarse hasta la "medula" y muy seriamente, escríbeme en correo privado, en Ingles, con las opciones que contempláis y te presento al staff del IETF que se ocupa de esto, para que le des seguimiento. Yo ahí me libero, pero cualquier cosa que necesitéis podéis contar conmigo, por supuesto.
Saludos,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 25/6/19 18:56, "Azael Fernandez Alcantara" <afaza at unam.mx> escribió:
Buen Dia,
Al respecto de los posibles hoteles en otras ciudades de Mexico,
retransmito el correo de Israel Rosas de ISOC que nos comparte la info.
No llego' su correo a la lista por alguna razon y me indico les comparta:
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Israel Rosas <rosas at isoc.org>
To: Azael Fernandez Alcantara <afaza at unam.mx>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-lac] [lacnog] ietf meeting fees
Hola Azael,
Offlist:
El Sheraton María Isabel (el que está por el Angel) cumple esos
requisitos. El World Trade Center también. En realidad solo es cuestión de
buscar las fechas cuando se lo proponen.
Otros casos:
Monterrey, en Parque Fundidora.
ExpoGuadalajara, en Guadalajara.
Palcco, en Zapopan, aunque ahí no hay hoteles cerca.
Puebla tiene algunas opciones también (el CCU, el Centro Expositor y el
Centro de Convenciones).
Si hay que ponerse creativos, se pueden encontrar opciones.
Un abrazo,
Israel
**************************************************************************
Naturalmente ademas de tener posibles lugares es importante la
participacion en las listas, de mas personas del pais sede.
SALUDOS
_______
UNAM
Azael
___________________________
Mensaje enviado sin acentos
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Azael Fernandez Alcantara wrote:
> Buen Dia,
>
> Por supuesto, que sean de la region y ameriten el apoyo.
>
> Pero si son otras regiones, con algun mecanismo que comprueben requieren
> ayuda y lo ameriten, por lo comentado, ademas que hay que considerar la tasa
> de cambio de la moneda en el pais de residencia, del posible participante.
> Lo del costo del avion, solo se podria disminuir si se hacen escalas
> intermedias en algunos casos.
>
> Del caso de Cancun, no es la Cd. de Cancun entonces, sino la parte de la
> Riviera Maya, la que cumple.
>
> No creo que solo la cd. de Buenos Aires vs. otras mencionadas, cumpla con las
> condiciones.
> Ya han habido por ejemplo, reuniones de ICANN en un hotel del centro de la
> Cd. de Mexico.
> No me comprometo esta proxima semana ir directamente al hotel, pero despues
> podria tratar y reviso con ellos a detalle los puntos que se requeririan.
>
> Cual es la " web donde todos los centros de convenciones y hoteles " que
> cumplen ?
>
> Prof. Diego.
> Un esquema de becas no seria factible para recurrentes participantes ya
> que siempre se busca, que haya nuevos participantes.
>
> Lo que comentamos es verdad, las empresas de la region, deben fomentar la
> investigacion local, de la mano de las matrices.
>
> Por cierto acaba de llegar un correo que lleva a la liga sobre el LLC:
>
> "We have now posted a first draft of the IETF LLC policies at
> https://github.com/ietf-llc/policies-consultation "
>
> A revisar documentos ..
>
> SALUDOS
> _______
> UNAM
> Azael
>
> ___________________________
> Mensaje enviado sin acentos
>
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via LACNOG wrote:
>
>> Hola Azael,
>>
>> Respecto de la inscripción de acuerdo contigo, pero no solo para regiones
>> determinadas. Las capacidades económicas dependen de las personas, no sólo
>> de las regiones, porque los vuelos para ir a las ciudades del IETF a veces
>> también suele ser mas caros en regiones con "mejores economías", etc. Y
>> definitivamente nunca gratis.
>>
>> El problema es que organizar un IETF no es posible en casi ninguna "gran
>> ciudad" fuera de US, porque no es habitual que se cumplan los requisitos.
>> En Europa solo lo cumplen unos 8-10 hoteles, en Asia Pacifico una cantidad
>> aproximada. En Canadá lo cumplen solo 3, quizás 4 hoteles. En África aún
>> no he localizado ninguno!
>>
>> Por eso he citado las ciudades que tengo "constancia" de que lo cumplen, y
>> creo recordar que DF no es una de ellas, salvo que haya un hotel nuevo.
>>
>> Para que te hagas una idea, las exigencias (en paralelo) son:
>> - Ubicación en zona céntrica de la ciudad
>> - 7 salas entre 150 y 250 personas, con al menos 2 filas de mesas en cada
>> sala.
>> - 1 sala para unas 1.000 personas, con al menso 2 filas de mesas.
>> - 20 salas de entre 12 y 20 personas, en diversas configuraciones.
>> - Varias salas mas, incluyendo almacén, hackaton, NOC, lounge, terminal
>> room, etc.
>> - 700-800 habitaciones en el hotel principal.
>> - 2-3 hoteles a una distancia máxima, caminando, de 5 minutos para otras
>> 500-600 personas.
>> - Restaurantes variados dentro y fuera del hotel principal, para alimentar
>> a 1.200 personas, distancia máxima del hotel principal de 5 minutos.
>> - Acceso *completo* e indiscriminado a *toda* la red del hotel, incluso
>> habitaciones de huéspedes.
>> - Poder instalar nuestros propios equipos de red (incluyendo red Wifi
>> completa) y enlaces a Internet con BGP (al menos 1 + backup, hasta ahora
>> eran de 1 Gigabit, ahora ya se busca 10 Gigas).
>>
>> Esto son requisitos aproximados, hay muchos otros.
>>
>> Si conoces otros hoteles (o centros de convenciones anexos a un hotel) que
>> lo cumplan, se pueden investigar otras ciudades, pero es difícil que no se
>> haya localizado ya. Hay una web donde todos los centros de convenciones y
>> hoteles que ofrecen estos servicios están listados, admiten ofertas,
>> suministran todos los datos, envían presupuestos, etc. y "no hay mas" y
>> sería raro que un hotel cumpla y no este en esa web.
>>
>> Para que tengas un ejemplo. En España he investigado unos 12 hoteles,
>> Madrid, Barcelona, Canarias, etc. Solo uno lo cumple en Madrid (hay otro
>> más pero no está en el centro de la ciudad y por tanto se descarta, ni
>> siquiera lo quisieron visitar y eso que es el hotel mas grande de Europa
>> para convenciones).
>>
>> En Barcelona otro quedo descartado por precio, y otro más porque al tener
>> un casino, no se permitía el acceso al equipamiento de la red del hotel,
>> pues el casino usa "parcialmente" la misma infraestructura. Otro más quedó
>> descartado porque los lugares para comer estaban a 10 minutos y otros
>> hoteles diferentes del principal también estaban a 10 minutos ... Son solo
>> ejemplos.
>>
>> Luego ademas esta el tema de precio, efectivamente no se suelen "ver bien"
>> ciudades turísticas, peligrosidad del país/ciudad, situación política, y
>> muchas muchas muchas mas cuestions.
>>
>> Hay un documento que aun no es RFC (estamos en ello), donde esta "parte"
>> de lo que es visible, pero no hay mucha información que aquí he puesto y
>> otros documentos mas:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-network-requirements-02.html
>>
>>
>> Saludos,
>> Jordi
>> @jordipalet
>>
>>
>>
>> El 14/6/19 19:38, "LACNOG en nombre de Azael Fernandez Alcantara"
>> <lacnog-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de afaza at unam.mx> escribió:
>>
>> Buen Dia,
>>
>> Tratando de seguir lo comentado, si me parece necesario haya
>> inscripcion o
>> "fees" reducidas para posibles participantes de nuestra region y otras
>> como Africa.
>>
>> Pero no "gratis", al menos al principio, ya despues con patrocinios
>> nacionales podria ser, como el apoyo de los becados en las mismas
>> reuniones de la IETF, para que se valore la importancia y no se deje de
>> apoyar la mision misma de las organizaciones citadas.
>>
>> De los sitios comentados, por ejemplo Cancun, solo por ser lugar creado
>> para el turismo y es atractivo, (por cierto en Mexico sale muchas veces
>> mas caro volar a Cancun desde otro lugar de Mexico, que ir a EUA en
>> avion), pero yo seria de la opinion que fuera en las ciudades donde hay
>> personas de las empresas , universidades e independientes que pueden
>> aportar y con conocimiento que seria productivo, y por tanto seria mas
>> facil aun su participacion (Cd. de Mexico, Guadalajara, Monterrey, etc)
>> al
>> justificarse mejor lo que realicen en sus instituciones.
>>
>> Con gusto me sumo para buscar posibles patrocinadores o despertar aun
>> mas
>> el interes.
>>
>>
>> SALUDOS
>> ________________________________
>> UNAM
>> Azael
>>
>> ___________________________
>> Mensaje enviado sin acentos
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via LACNOG wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > El 13/6/19 23:01, "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3011 at gmail.com>
>> > escribió:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hola Jordi,
>> >
>> > Yo no discuto que sea deseable que el costo de la inscripción baje.
>> > De hecho, a mi presupuesto le vendría
>> > bárbaro.
>> >
>> > Comprendido, pensé que lo rebatías !
>> >
>> > Lo que digo es que históricamente las registration fees han sido uno
>> > de los elementos que financian al IETF y
>> > que el PIR lo que hace es cubrir el faltante.
>> >
>> > Así es hasta ahora, pero creo que el LLC es una oportunidad para
>> > cambiar el balance. El PIR tiene exceso de
>> > dinero y el IETF es la mejor manera de emplearlo.
>> >
>> > El mismo IETF ha sido reacio a recibir más ayuda del PIR/ISOC y de
>> > hecho, ahora de la mano del LLC creado en
>> > el marco de las IASA 2.0 van a buscar otros sponsors.
>> >
>> > Creo que debemos cambiar esa reacción contraria, ahora que existe el
>> > LLC tiene sentido, porque todos los que
>> > buscamos sponsors sabemos que es algo muy difícil (yo tengo el
>> > dilema/problema de que no encuentro sponsor
>> > para el social del IETF en Madrid, y habla de cantidades ridículas
>> > comparadas con lo que cuesta patrocinar el
>> > evento de IETF). Además, creo que es poco “bueno” que sean empresas
>> > del sector las que patrocinen “mas” el
>> > IETF. No veo con buenos ojos que un Cisco o un Huawei (por poner dos
>> > ejemplos) pueden tener aun “mas”
>> > influencia, no tanto porque esa influencia sea real, sino por lo que
>> > parezca (nos guste o no “no basta con
>> > ser bueno hay que parecerlo” – supongo que se entiende el dicho).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Quizás en este último punto nosotros como comunidad podemos llegar a
>> > colaborar, tratando de buscar que
>> > organizaciones de nuestra región o al menos de nuestros ámbitos de
>> > influencia puede ser sponsor del IETF.
>> >
>> > Sería buenísimo, pero no se si es real. Además, podría ser bueno atar
>> > eso a que esos fondos se empleen en
>> > organizar IETFs en la región. Yo tengo identificados lugares que
>> > pueden alojarlo y así lo he comentado varias
>> > veces con el grupo que se encarga de localizar lugares para los
>> > eventos:
>> >
>> > * Buenos Aires
>> > * Panamá
>> > * Cancún
>> > * Sao Paulo
>> >
>> > Seguramente hay algún otro, y las barreras poco a poco irán cediendo
>> > para que ocurra.
>> >
>> > Cuando yo hablaba en los años 2005-2007 (aprox) en los plenarios de
>> > hacer IETFs en LAC o en Africa, casi me
>> > insultaba y me tiraban piedras … y nos costo con el primero en Buenos
>> > Aires, pero salió bien y ahí esta la
>> > prueba.
>> >
>> > Lo que si me parece es que solo quejarnos de algo no ayuda a que ese
>> > algo se solucione, tenemos que ser más
>> > activos en la búsqueda de esas soluciones.
>> >
>> > Lo dicho, yo voy a pensármelo un poco y proponer algo al LLC.
>> >
>> > S2
>> >
>> > /Carlos
>> >
>> > On 13 Jun 2019, at 17:55, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via LACNOG wrote:
>> >
>> > Hola Carlos,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Si y no …
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ISOC se hizo cargo del PIR (.org), con el objetivo principal de
>> > garantizar el soporte de IETF.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Y el .org, genera mucho mas dinero del que IETF necesita.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Creo que sería deseable que se baje mucho la cuota de
>> > participación, quizas unos 100 USD, porque
>> > los que nos lo pagamos de nuestro bolsillo, nos facilitaría
>> > mucho las cosas.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Cuesta tanto la cuota de registro (800 USD mas o menos), como
>> > el vuelo, según donde sea. A veces
>> > el vuelo a mi me sale mucho mas barato incluso. Me parece una
>> > exageración.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > No lo pondría gratuito para evitar que alguien vaya “para
>> > pegarse un viaje y curiosear”, aunque
>> > dudo que eso ocurriera mucho, excepto participantes locales, y
>> > si son pocos, no pasa nada.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Quizas un sistema que permita que los empleados de empresas que
>> > facturen mas de “x” millones de
>> > dolares (que son las que mas beneficio tienen de hecho, gracias
>> > a la contribución de todos al
>> > IETF), paguen incluso mas de 1.000 USD, y en cambio las
>> > instituciones sin ánimo de lucro,
>> > gobiernos o las empresas que facturen menos de esa cantidad
>> > “x”, paguen esos 100 USD.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > De hecho, me voy a plantear este sistema o algo parecido y se
>> > lo voy a plantear al Board del IETF
>> > LLC.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Saludos,
>> >
>> > Jordi
>> >
>> > @jordipalet
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > El 13/6/19 21:29, "LACNOG en nombre de Carlos Marcelo Martinez
>> > Cagnazzo" <lacnog-bounces at lacnic.net en
>> > nombre de carlosm3011 at gmail.com> escribió:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Y cuál sería tu propuesta Fernando? Entiendo la preocupación pero
>> > también entiendo de qué el IETF se
>> > tiene que financiar de alguna forma.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > No digo que no puedan existir otros mecanismos, pero si creo que hay
>> > que justamente buscarlos y
>> > proponerlos.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > S2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Carlos
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > via Newton Mail
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:10pm, Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yo plantie esta inquietud en latinoamerica, junto con otras
>> > tantas.
>> >
>> > Nadie me dio ni pelota.
>> >
>> > EN fin...
>> >
>> >
>> > -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> > Subject: Re: ietf meeting fees
>> > Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 13:45:00 -0400
>> > From: John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>
>> > To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns at comcast.net>, ietf at ietf.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 21:29 -0400 Michael StJohns
>> > <mstjohns at comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 5/28/2019 6:49 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> > >> On 5/28/19 4:35 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> > > ...
>> > > IMO - it's not inertia as much as reality. In the current
>> > > "we don't have members" and "we don't charge for standards"
>> > > model, we have three funding sources: meeting fees, sponsor
>> > > contributions (both meeting and sustaining), and checks from
>> > > the parents ... I mean ISOC contributions. We could
>> > > become more like other standards organizations by charging
>> > > for
>> > > either or both of membership (student, researcher, personal,
>> > > corporate etc) and copies of the standards, but I grok that
>> > > either of those changes could change the fundamentals of the
>> > > IETF in a way that could make us *less* viable or
>> > > relevant.
>> > > ...
>> >
>> > Mike,
>> >
>> > I mostly agree, but have a different take on this, involving
>> > two
>> > other pieces of the same reality. As participation costs [1]
>> > rise, it becomes harder for people without enterprise (profit
>> > or
>> > non-profit) support to attend f2f meetings. For those of us
>> > with healthy consulting practices or significant
>> > non-occupational income, retirement income, or other reserves,
>> > attendance becomes a matter of personal or business priorities.
>> > For people operating as individuals and closer to the edge, the
>> > choice may be one of feasibility. As a personal example, I've
>> > got some health issues that drive up minimum costs, but there
>> > have been years when I was attending substantially all meetings
>> > f2f in which the annual IETF bill came to USD 30K- 40K. Even
>> > if
>> > one can get by at half or a third of that by cutting various
>> > costs, we still are not talking about chump change.
>> >
>> > It would be good to have actual numbers, although I'm not
>> > confident that many of us would want to disclose the details of
>> > our support situations to the community (or even the
>> > Secretariat), but my strong suspicion is the percentage of
>> > people actually participating as individuals -- on our own
>> > wallets with no enterprise/organization support -- is dropping
>> > relative to those who can depend on organizational money for
>> > travel support, registration fees, and maybe even a salary
>> > while
>> > at IETF or doing IETF work. To the extent that is the case,
>> > it
>> > turns the model of participation by individuals into a
>> > convenient myth.
>> > Of course, organizations differ hugely about what, if anything,
>> > people they support to participate in the IETF are expected to
>> > do in return. We've seen the full spectrum from "go there, do
>> > your thing, and don't pay any attention to any relationships to
>> > your day job" to clear corporate policies about positions
>> > employees are expected to take or avoid in the IETF, rewards
>> > for
>> > particular IETF-related actions or accomplishments, and so on.
>> > However, I suggest that even the potential for a company to
>> > hold
>> > people accountable for what they do in the IETF makes those
>> > people different from our traditional story (myth ?) about
>> > individual participation.
>> >
>> > That myth is, IMO, dangerous for at least three reasons. One
>> > is
>> > that reasoning from the assumption that changing a model that
>> > doesn't exist in practice would fundamentally change the IETF
>> > may get in the way or clear thinking about alternatives,
>> > including financial alternatives. Second, noting that
>> > participating as an IESG, IAB, etc., member is even more
>> > expensive than participating as an ordinary contributor, if our
>> > decision bodies come to be dominated by people with strong
>> > organizational support, sensitivity to cost and related issues
>> > by those who actually make the decisions may be reduced.
>> > Finally, many of our policies and procedures are designed
>> > around
>> > the assumption of individual participation and the related
>> > assumption of no coordinated organizational influence. Should
>> > the IETF, as a standards developer ever get itself embroiled in
>> > claims that particular standards decisions were made because of
>> > undue organizational influences and that those decisions
>> > distorted the market for certain products, our failure to have
>> > policies and procedures in place to control that risk -- and
>> > our
>> > presumed claim that we don't need them because everyone
>> > participates as an individual would be more likely to fail a
>> > laugh test the more unbalanced the participant profile gets.
>> >
>> > > ...
>> > > So in the current model we can a) charge higher meeting fees,
>> > > b) get more sponsorship, and c) ask ISOC for a bigger check.
>> > > None of these wells are bottomless. We could reduce
>> > > expenditures - but what would you cut? Meeting related
>> > > munchies and internet? Remote access bandwidth? Staff costs?
>> > > Tools support? Standards production?
>> > > ...
>> >
>> > Well, I don't know how much it would help and we have built
>> > systems that would cause it to take a long time for any changes
>> > to show significant effects (maybe another symptom of the
>> > "individual participation" myth), but we could also think about
>> > some ways to cut costs and how much they would save. As
>> > examples,
>> > (i) Raise the threshold for creating a new WG, keeping a WG
>> > going, and/or giving WGs meeting time slots, or restrict the
>> > number of WGs to the point that we could reduce the number of
>> > days the IETF meets and/or the number of meeting rooms needed
>> > in
>> > parallel. Reducing the number of days meetings last would
>> > reduce the number of hotel nights people had to pay for and
>> > perhaps even the number of hotel nights for staff the IETF,
>> > ISOC, etc., needed to pay for. Reducing the number of parallel
>> > meeting rooms required might broaden the range of facilities we
>> > could consider and thereby permit lower-cost meeting site
>> > choices.
>> > (ii) Consider whether, with increasing use of interim meetings,
>> > we could reduce the number of all-IETF meetings from three to
>> > two. This would presumably reduce annual travel, hotel, and
>> > other costs for both participants and staff and might help
>> > broaden participation by allowing at least some participants to
>> > spend a larger fraction of the year at their day jobs.
>> >
>> > (iii) Push back aggressively on small group meetings in
>> > parallel
>> > with IETF. IIR, we used to require between three and four
>> > small
>> > meeting rooms: IAB and IESG (sometimes sharing one dedicated
>> > space), a work area for the Secretariat, and maybe something
>> > else like the Nomcom. Anything else was required to take it
>> > elsewhere or meet in ordinary hotel rooms (or rooms of members
>> > of the leadership who were given complementary upgrades to
>> > suites under hotel contracts); we even aggressively discouraged
>> > other groups or company gatherings in the meeting hotel. I
>> > gather the number of such spaces that are "required" has
>> > increased very significantly. Given the complexities of hotel
>> > contracts I am not sure that cutting the number back down would
>> > lower costs for a given facility, but such a decrease would
>> > increase the number of facilities that could be considered,
>> > leaving us less at the mercy of facilities large enough to
>> > accommodate our increasing needs and more able to negotiate
>> > more
>> > attractive facility contracts.
>> >
>> > I note that each of the above has been proposed in the past, at
>> > least the first to the point of I-Ds proposing different
>> > variations. What they have in common is that the IESG (and/or
>> > IASA) have been unwilling to take them up. There are others
>> > that might be worth considering although I'd predict they would
>> > be even less likely to go anywhere:
>> >
>> > (iv) Push back on IAB, IESG, or other "retreats" that require
>> > additional travel, sometimes four weeks a year away from home
>> > rather than three, and staff support and travel. These
>> > increase costs and decrease the number and diversity of people
>> > who can volunteer to serve in leadership positions. Sometimes
>> > they are worth it, but the community's uncritical acceptance of
>> > them as regular events may imply that we are not paying enough
>> > attention to cost control (or that those will large travel and
>> > expense accounts don't notice the costs or don't care).
>> >
>> > (v) And, yes, we could attack the cookie budget by, e.g.,
>> > creating an extra charge for snack breaks. Given the nature
>> > of
>> > hotel contracts, it is not clear how much that would save, but
>> > making it negotiable would increase our ability to control
>> > costs
>> > and promote competition among candidate facilities.
>> >
>> > Those are just examples. If we were serious about cost
>> > reductions, we could probably come up with others. I suggest
>> > that "we" are no serious and that, in some respects, the
>> > increase in remote participation has reduced the incentives to
>> > control costs because someone who can't afford to travel to all
>> > f2f meetings just stops doing so. However, that seems to me
>> > to
>> > be reducing the diversity of the IETF's leadership, making the
>> > idea of participation as individuals more or a fiction, and
>> > turning the IETF more into a body where participation and
>> > leadership is by large and well-funded organizations even
>> > though
>> > we keep trying to hide and deny that.
>> >
>> > >>> If you are arguing for actions that reduce or tend to
>> > >>> reduce
>> > >>> or have the potential to limit the intake of funds from
>> > >>> that model, I suggest you also come up with a more than
>> > >>> handwaving proposal for how to replace those funds or
>> > >>> explain which functions supported by the IETF we're going
>> > >>> to eliminate to cover such shortfall.
>> > >>
>> > >> Perhaps we should also require more than handwaving reasons
>> > >> for staying the same. :-)
>> > >
>> > > See above - it's really just a question of who we want to be
>> > > and what we're willing to pay to become that. If you can
>> > > tell me who we want to be, I can help you with figuring out
>> > > what it's going to cost in time, reputation, angst, etc.
>> > > ...
>> >
>> > To turn this around a bit, maybe we should accept that who we
>> > claim to be is getting less true even if has yet to disappear
>> > entirely. If we want to be a body that matches our claims, we
>> > need to figure out what we are willing to pay (in cost
>> > reductions, changes in workload, and adjustments to leadership
>> > and overhead structures) to get that back and retain it. I am
>> > not holding my breath.
>> >
>> > best,
>> > john
>> >
>> >
>> > [1] That is costs as seen by those individual participants,
>> > i.e., not just the registration fee but the sum of that, plus
>> > travel expenses (air, hotel, meals, visa application fees and
>> > associated travel when necessary, etc.), maybe plus lost income
>> > or other opportunity costs when our individual sources of
>> > income
>> > or other support make that relevant.
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LACNOG mailing list
>> > LACNOG at lacnic.net
>> > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>> > Cancelar suscripcion:
>> > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________ LACNOG mailing list
>> > LACNOG at lacnic.net
>> > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog Cancelar suscripcion:
>> > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
>> >
>> >
>> > **********************************************
>> > IPv4 is over
>> > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> > http://www.theipv6company.com
>> > The IPv6 Company
>> >
>> > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
>> > or confidential. The information
>> > is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named
>> > above and further non-explicilty
>> > authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
>> > of this information, even if
>> > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will
>> > be considered a criminal offense.
>> > If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
>> > copying, distribution or use of the
>> > contents of this information, even if partially, including attached
>> > files, is strictly prohibited, will
>> > be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
>> > sender to inform about this
>> > communication and delete it.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LACNOG mailing list
>> > LACNOG at lacnic.net
>> > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>> > Cancelar suscripcion:
>> > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
>> >
>> >
>> > **********************************************
>> > IPv4 is over
>> > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> > http://www.theipv6company.com
>> > The IPv6 Company
>> >
>> > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
>> > or confidential. The information is
>> > intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above
>> > and further non-explicilty authorized
>> > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> > information, even if partially, including
>> > attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a
>> > criminal offense. If you are not the intended
>> > recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use
>> > of the contents of this information,
>> > even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited,
>> > will be considered a criminal offense,
>> > so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
>> > communication and delete it.
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> LACNOG mailing list
>> LACNOG at lacnic.net
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>> Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.theipv6company.com
>> The IPv6 Company
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
>> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
>> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
>> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
>> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
>> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
>> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
>> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
>> communication and delete it.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LACNOG mailing list
>> LACNOG at lacnic.net
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>> Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
>
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
More information about the LACTF
mailing list