Subject: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:18:14 -0700

Hi,

Prague was even more incredible than I could of imagined,
well worth the trip from Los Angeles.

However, the extended opportunity to experience the air travel
industry, and all its comforts, made me realize just how important it is
that the IETF venues "sometimes happen near me" (para-phrasing
Fred Baker's notion of fairness here) be true for everybody.

The level of de-humanization, indifference, mixed in with
incompetence and economic pressures, has reached a new high,
or rather a new low.  Unless you are very rich, the sir travel experience
is just something you have to endure to go to an IETF.
(My carrier's employees seemed united in their quest to mess up at every step.
I hope I get my luggage back someday.)

As much as I like having the IETF near Los Angeles often,
it is clearly not fair to many other in the IETF, especially
in Europe and Asia.

Andy

_______________________________________________
68ATTENDEES mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:50:08 +0200

The IETFers from other-than-North-America thank you for saying that,  
I'm sure. BTW, I don't think that's a paraphrase; it's a direct  
quote, or very close to one. Two formulations I recall using have  
been that "the IETF meets where its participants hail from" and "if  
I'm working in the IETF, once in a while the meeting should happen  
near me". The thought actually came up at lunch today, when yet  
another person commented to me that the IETF should meet in a place  
from which people are *not* coming. Yes, there are quite a few of  
those places. I most frequently state my view here when told "if we  
were to have an IETF meeting in <some truly out-of-the-way place>,  
people from there would then participate in the IETF".  That's not  
the objective. The objective is, as you say, fairness among those who  
already do.

Among the first questions I was faced with as incoming IETF Chair in  
1996 was whether to schedule meetings in Munich, Naples, somewhere  
else in Europe I don't recall, or Adelaide. Mark Prior's proposal to  
post in Adelaide was from a group of IIRC 8 people who had been  
working steadily in the IETF since a decade before. I analyzed the  
then-posted Internet Drafts (as the most reasonable database of  
people definitively working in the IETF at the time), and came up  
with roughly 675 people, who seemed to be distributed 80% North  
America, 16% Europe, and 4% everywhere else. On the basis of the  
doctrine, I instructed the secretariat to schedule one meeting in six  
in Europe, and on my watch we met in Munich in 1997, Oslo in 1999,  
and London in 2001. On the basis of that I also told Jun Murai that  
we would *not* meet in Japan, which was sending a few people that sat  
and listened but posted no internet drafts, and then scheduled a  
meeting in Yokohama in 2002 after the Japanese became serious  
contributors to the IETF. And some here will remember me sending a  
private note to each of those ~675 people (and a couple of mailing  
lists by mistake) and reading the perhaps 150-200 responses that came  
back, asking how others viewed the possibility of a meeting in  
Adelaide. What the IETF told me was that its participants had  
business reasons to attend. While the cost and complexity of the  
travel might affect how *many* from a company would come to a  
particular meeting, enough participants would come to have effective  
meetings. We met in Adelaide in 2000.

Between 1996 and 2001, the demographics changed vastly in the  
direction of Europe and Japan, and they have continued to widen. We  
are now distributed roughly evenly between Europe, Eastern Asia, and  
North America. We have very few participants from South America,  
Africa, Antarctica, or that part of the world variously called  
"Western Asia" or "the Middle East", and we have a handful from the  
land of Oz. IETF policy under Harald and Brian, who oversaw a great  
change in demographic, has been to move in the direction of meeting  
roughly 1/3 of the time Europe, Eastern Asia, and North America for  
that reason.

The IETFs we have scheduled coming up are in Chicago, Vancouver,  
Philadelphia, and Minneapolis. I was not on the IAOC at the time,  
although I am now. That said, I can tell you why this scattering has  
happened. The IAD came on with only one future meeting contracted,  
and had to work hard to find venues. He worked a deal with Hilton  
Hotels, and has been burning rubber trying to get venues in place  
18-24 months in advance. He tried to put IETF 70 in China (we would  
have had meetings in Prague, Chicago, and Shanghai this year), but  
that didn't work out, and Vancouver was a fall-back option. Frankly,  
given the kinds of comments IETFers make when (as in Vienna) we are  
scattered across the town, he tries really hard to put IETF meetings  
under one or at most a few roofs. It is easier to place meetings in  
North America for that reason. He has put in place IETF meetings that  
he has been able to arrange.

On the schedule, though, the undesignated slots are named by  
continent, and he is considering locations in Australia, Japan,  
China, and several places in Europe. We'll see what the IAD can  
actually work out, but I expect IETF 72 is likely to be in Eastern  
Asia, and 2009 might not find us in North America at all.

On Mar 25, 2007, at 5:18 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Prague was even more incredible than I could of imagined, well  
> worth the trip from Los Angeles.
>
> industry, and all its comforts, made me realize just how important  
> it is that the IETF venues "sometimes happen near me" (para- 
> phrasing Fred Baker's notion of fairness here) be true for everybody.
>
> incompetence and economic pressures, has reached a new high, or  
> rather a new low. Unless you are very rich, the sir travel  
> experience is just something you have to endure to go to an IETF.  
> (My carrier's employees seemed united in their quest to mess up at  
> every step. I hope I get my luggage back someday.)
>
> As much as I like having the IETF near Los Angeles often, it is  
> clearly not fair to many other in the IETF, especially in Europe  
> and Asia.
>
> Andy

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:44:20 -0500

On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 07:50:08AM +0200, Fred Baker wrote:
>                                                         That's not  

The objective should be to maximize IETF participation from people who
want to participate while being "fair."

Current demographics shouldn't be weighed too heavily as IETF meetings
might help stimulate broader participation from locals.

Holding an IETF meeting in an expensive city does not help, even if that
city is near to many participants, unless there are no inexpensive
cities near them.  Thus Prague is a much better location in continental
Europe than Paris, for example (my food expenses in Prague pale by
comparison to Paris).  Of course, transportation options should be part
of the equation as well, so Paris may still be a better location than
Prague (though airfare in Europe is quite reasonable nowadays).

And as you point out hotel options matter.  Many of us work late hours
during IETF meetings, so being able to stay at the conference hotel
matters (which means venue size and expense matters), and if that cannot
be then late hour transportation and safety matters too.  (I did not
stay at the conference venue hotel at Prague, but I was not far and
could take the metro or walk and did not mind; others may not have
enjoyed that as much as I did.)  I'm not sure where I'd rank Prague on
that basis as I enjoyed late night walks there, but that's quite
subjective; Minneapolis is certainly OK.

Nico
--

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:54:31 -0700

> want to participate while being "fair."

Sorry I brought this thread up again.
I didn't intend to rehash the notion of fair.
IMO, micro-parsing it out into little costs and weighing them
is counter-productive.  Just getting a better mix of
non-North American venues would be fine, without micro-managing
how that should be done.

Andy

---

From: "Eric Gray \(LO/EUS\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:01:58 -0500

Actually, it might be time to consider a South American Venue...

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 12:55 PM
> To: Nicolas Williams
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine
> 
> Nicolas Williams wrote:

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:22:36 +0100

I am not sure I subscribe to the travel fairness doctrine.

For me the ONLY criteria is whether the people that need to be in the 
meetings and in the corridors to get the work done will be there.

Everything else is secondary as far as I am concerned.

Stewart

---

From: "Eric Gray \(LO/EUS\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:29:53 -0500

Thanks!

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 1:23 PM
> To: Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
> Cc: Andy Bierman; Nicolas Williams; [email-masked]
> Importance: High

---

From: "Eric Gray \(LO/EUS\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:30:00 -0500

Thanks!

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:33:00 -0500

> meetings and in the corridors to get the work done will be there.

Well, yes, but with today's IETF demographics that may be difficult.

At this point venue size, ease of transportation, security and average
cost to attendees may be the best first order criteria.  Hmm, add visa
issues too, perhaps.

"Fairness," here, to me, is all about cost, which is really about the
likelihood that enough participants will show up.

W.r.t. cost, the dollar's continuing slide probably makes U.S. venues
cheaper :)

Nico
--

---

From: "Eric Gray \(LO/EUS\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:40:45 -0500

Stewart,

	I realize that your response to my post may simply be because 
it was convenient, but responding to me along the lines below is not
particularly just - especially when you omit my comment.

	I merely observed that - as long as we're talking about more
variety in meeting venues - it might be worth noting that the IETF
appears to think that the planet Earth is hemispherical.  Perhaps
it might be useful to have a meeting once every few decades in the
part of the world where the Earth spins clockwise.

	Instead, you respond to my post as if I was arguing that the
IETF is really just a social club.  Really?  

	:-)

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:46:04 -0700

I think that the unspoken point here is that even though it is quite likely that most IETF participants can make the USA if every meeting were held there the fact of holding every meeting in the USA would probably cause European and Asian participants to be more reluctant to attend.

I think that the objective should be to hold meetings in locations that are broadly inclusive and encourage participation.

That is somewhat broader than simply looking at where the current participants come from but considerably less broad than matching meetings to Internet use or population.

I would prefer to head off complaints such as we have seen from the Egyptian and Brazilian governments in recent years rather than see the IETF being chosen as the token in a diplomatic proxy battle.

On the other hand I don't believe that we should be meeting at any venue that lacks a certain level of basic infrastructure, including direct air service by major international cariers.

> For me the ONLY criteria is whether the people that need to 
> be in the meetings and in the corridors to get the work done 
> will be there.
>

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:57:33 -0500

On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 10:46:04AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> I would prefer to head off complaints such as we have seen from the
> Egyptian and Brazilian governments in recent years rather than see the
> IETF being chosen as the token in a diplomatic proxy battle.

Quite clearly there are many criteria to consider in choosing a meeting
venue and the IAD's job will be difficult.

> On the other hand I don't believe that we should be meeting at any
> venue that lacks a certain level of basic infrastructure, including
> direct air service by major international cariers.

Cost, safety, transportation convenience, visa policies, diplomacy,
attendance maximization, "fairness," etc...  That's quite a few of
potentially conflicting criteria.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:57:56 -0400

Fred,

One final observation from me, and then I'm dropping out of this
conversation rather than prolonging it.

--On Monday, 26 March, 2007 07:50 +0200 Fred Baker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> Two formulations I recall
> using have been that "the IETF meets where its participants
> hail from" and "if I'm working in the IETF, once in a while
> the meeting should happen near me".
>...
> The objective is, as you say, fairness
> among those who already do.
>...
> I analyzed the then-posted Internet Drafts
> (as the most reasonable database of people definitively
> working in the IETF at the time), and came up with roughly 675
> people, who seemed to be distributed 80% North America, 16%
> Europe, and 4% everywhere else. On the basis of the doctrine,
> I instructed the secretariat to schedule one meeting in six in
> Europe, and on my watch we met in Munich in 1997, Oslo in
>...
> direction of Europe and Japan, and they have continued to
> widen. We are now distributed roughly evenly between Europe,
> Eastern Asia, and North America. We have very few participants
> from South America, Africa, Antarctica, or that part of the
> world variously called "Western Asia" or "the Middle East",
> and we have a handful from the land of Oz. IETF policy under
> Harald and Brian, who oversaw a great change in demographic,
> has been to move in the direction of meeting roughly 1/3 of
> the time Europe, Eastern Asia, and North America for that
> reason.
>...

This is a lucid presentation of the criteria, or some of them,
that you used.  You told the community at the time what those
criteria were.  My expectation is that the IAOC will develop
similar criteria, that they will announce them to the community,
and that they will listen to community feedback to tune those
criteria.  Being realistic, I assume that you (collectively)
will need to weight the criteria to actually schedule real
meetings in real places.  I do not expect those weights to be
exactly the same from meeting to meeting, nor do I expect the
IAOC to get into a discussion with the community about weighting
factors.  I also do not expect the IAD to engage in a discussion
with the community about provisions of a particular hotel
contract: BCP 101 appears to me to explicitly exclude that
requirement.

The problems recently have, IMO, been one of communication, not
choices, and of taking responsibility for the choices that are
made.  I think there may also have been some disagreement
between the IAOC and the community about expectations about
openness and/or how important the community thinks openness to
be.  For example, I believe that, if one signs a long-term
contract with a hotel chain, BCP 101 requires that at least a
summary of the provisions of that contract and what obligations
it imposes on the IETF be posted, expediously, on the IAOC web
site, not merely announced (in press release form) on the IETF
list.   

I also believe that the IAOC should be making the list of things
that are considered in selecting meeting sites clear to the
community, just as you did above and while you were IETF Chair.
When an IAOC member appears to tell me, instead, that the
choices are very complex and that they can't be explained to the
community, we have a rather significant disconnect because I
don't believe that BCP 101 allows the IAOC to operate in a model
of "we are the experts and you don't get to find out and/or
shouldn't ask".

Now, my personal criteria come pretty close to Stewart Bryant's
principle of being sure that the "people that need to be in the
meetings and in the corridors to get the work done will be
there".  I think your "near where people are" rule, and some
others, are ultimately ways to realize that principle.  I expect
the IAOC and IAD to work out the details, but I expect them to
tell the community what criteria they have worked out and to
listen to the inevitable feedback when it comes in.

That is really all.  And, for the record, I've been completely
satisfied by Ray's responses along these dimensions.

regards,
    john

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:23:18 -0400

John,
         I think this is a crucial point, and one I 100% agree with.

Lou

At 03:57 PM 3/26/2007, John C Klensin wrote:
><...> I expect

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:42:55 +0100

+1

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:37:33 -0700

It seems to me that one factor that we have not really dealt with is aspects of a venue that are changeable and those that are not.

One aspect that really does complicate matters is that instead of charging a fair price for meeting rooms hotels prefer to give the use of the rooms for free and to charge for servicing the rooms in various ways - 'meeting planners', refereshments etc.

So as a practical matter the negotiations are complex because the terms of the contract are not orthogonal. 

Other parts of the venue contract are certainly negotiable. For example I would bet that given sufficient notice pretty much any venue we might visit would be able to provide nut free cookies for the refreshment break, at least at a level that was safe for most people with nut allergies. If you have a sufficiently severe allergy it is simply not safe for your to eat any food prepared in a kitchen where food with nuts is prepared and there is no venue anywhere in the world that is going to be safe. 

Smoking is unfortunately something that is much more common in most places than in the bulk of the US.

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:25:47 -0400

Personally, I LIKED being "scattered across lot of different hotels" in 
Vienna ( I LIKE smaller hotels), but would have preferred it if the 
meeting venue itself were closer to the "center of mass" of the hotels.

Janet

Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote on 03/26/2007 01:50:08 AM:

Frankly, 
> under one or at most a few roofs. 
>

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:13:24 -0700

>  might help stimulate broader participation from locals.

I have to disagree.  I think Fred is correct on this point: we should 
aim for holding meetings that are near the people who are currently 
doing the work.  There are a number of standards bodies that do the 
bulk of their work in the meetings.  The IETF isn't like that -- it 
is possible to do a fair bit of work on the mailing lists.

Encouraging new people and people in new areas to start working in 
the IETF is a good thing, but should be done using tools other than 
the location of the IETF meetings themselves.  Meeting time is too 
limited to spend it this way.  Most groups meet for two hours, and 
that time needs to be focused;  people need to be familiar with the 
issues before they walk into the  meeting room.

>  matters

I agree.  Plus running into people in the lobby or other areas helps 
a lot, as a lot of the IETF work gets  done in informal meetings.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Democracy is a form of government in which it is permitted to wonder
aloud what the country could do under first-class management.

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:31:55 -0700

Randall Gellens wrote:
> doing the work.  There are a number of standards bodies that do the bulk 
> of their work in the meetings.  The IETF isn't like that -- it is 
> possible to do a fair bit of work on the mailing lists.
> 

I strongly agree with you.
The EDU team is providing training, there are lots of WEB pages,
and it costs nothing to participate on the mailing lists.
That is plenty of encouragement to newcomers to participate.
Meetings should be planned for the existing members.

> Encouraging new people and people in new areas to start working in the 
> IETF is a good thing, but should be done using tools other than the 
> location of the IETF meetings themselves.  Meeting time is too limited 
> to spend it this way.  Most groups meet for two hours, and that time 
> needs to be focused;  people need to be familiar with the issues before 
> they walk into the  meeting room.
> 
> I agree.  Plus running into people in the lobby or other areas helps a 
> lot, as a lot of the IETF work gets  done in informal meetings.
> 

Indeed.  It would be great if the hotel had a decent bar
so it is easier to have more effective Bar BoFs, but this
is not something we can count on, as Prague Hilton demonstrated
for us.

Chris Elliot suggested that since we use this list to comment
extensively on the local drinking establishments, why not research
and then designate one as the "Bar BoF Bar"?

Andy

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:01:02 +0200

>>>>> "Fred" == Fred Baker <[email-masked]> writes:
    Fred> Shanghai this year), but  that didn't work out, and Vancouver
    Fred> was a fall-back option. Frankly,  given the kinds of comments
    Fred> IETFers make when (as in Vienna) we are  scattered across the
    Fred> town, he tries really hard to put IETF meetings  under one or
    Fred> at most a few roofs. It is easier to place meetings in 

  I was in Vienna, and I will re-interate that this was a problem. 
  It would not have been as bad, had the conference space had 3-4
bars/lounges/restaurants that were available until midnight.
  I.e. I don't really need to have my room next door, as long as I can 
"run into" people in the bar/lounge reasonably frequently.
  (Having my bed next door, means that I can run into people at 3 in the
morning, when my time zone hasn't adjusted yet...)

    Fred> in Europe. We'll see what the IAD can  actually work out, but
    Fred> I expect IETF 72 is likely to be in Eastern  Asia, and 2009
    Fred> might not find us in North 
    Fred> America at all.

  Cool with me!
  I appreciate knowing the continent. It helps me a lot with budget planning. 

  I want to say that when looking at cities, I for one, I am very happy
with changing from air to train. 
  I.e. I'd fly to Frankfurt or Amsterdam and take the train to, for
       instance, Dortmund, Hannover, Metz, Nancy, Lyon, ....

- -- 
]            Bear: "Me, I'm just the shape of a bear."          |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [