Subject: [69ATTENDEES] Immigration issues in US

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:50:54 -0500

Hi all,

I've talked with a few people during the welcome reception and got the
feeling that several had been under the same situation with the immigration
when arriving to US this time.

It seems that the controls are going worst and actually getting really
annoying. I was stuck in 4 different controls, taking me more than 4 hours
since the flight landed until being able to come to the hotel.

Note that I'm a regular visitor to US for different kind of meetings, in
fact I've been here already 3 times this year, so I don't think there is any
valid reason to become suddenly a "suspicious subject" and having to pass
all those extra controls at least not in a so slow process.

If this is the situation we are going to have in the next meetings and this
is happening to more and more people as I've been told today, definitively,
US *MUST* be excluded for any next meetings, as this is totally
unacceptable.

I will like to know how many folks have been this time under this situation.

Regards,
Jordi

_______________________________________________
69ATTENDEES mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/69attendees

---

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:06:17 +0900 (JST)

> since the flight landed until being able to come to the hotel.

	and fingerprinting and mugshot...

	(unfortunately Japan will start the same thing in Nov 2007)

itojun

---

From: "Michal Krsek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:20:14 -0500

Hi Jordi,

> since the flight landed until being able to come to the hotel.

seems strange for me. I've entered US in Atlanta and have to say I've got 
only two questions:

a) Trip purpose
b) Length of the stay

Passed all the queues in about 20 minutes (including 15 minutes of waiting 
for my luggage).

This has to be shortest immigration pass in my history (last time I've spent 
about 20 minutes talking to immigration officer about my t-shirt - there has 
been USS Missouri on it and he has been on board during WW 2nd).

> US *MUST* be excluded for any next meetings, as this is totally

I'm not ure if IETF/ISOC has so much power to talk to TSA nor DHS.

I have to say that if immigration control will go same way for a while, I'll 
not be asked about anything during my next visit :-)

            Regards
                Michal

P.S: BTW I'd like to see IETF meeting in Spain - would you like act as local 
volunteer?

---

From: "Gunter Van de Velde \(gvandeve\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 02:46:39 +0200

I just had to suffer a queue of 30 minutes... That was it, hence not too
bad this time. 
For the rest all went quite reasonable.

G/ 

-----Original Message-----
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 1:51 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [69ATTENDEES] Immigration issues in US

Hi all,

I've talked with a few people during the welcome reception and got the
feeling that several had been under the same situation with the
immigration when arriving to US this time.

It seems that the controls are going worst and actually getting really
annoying. I was stuck in 4 different controls, taking me more than 4
hours since the flight landed until being able to come to the hotel.

Note that I'm a regular visitor to US for different kind of meetings, in
fact I've been here already 3 times this year, so I don't think there is
any valid reason to become suddenly a "suspicious subject" and having to
pass all those extra controls at least not in a so slow process.

If this is the situation we are going to have in the next meetings and
this is happening to more and more people as I've been told today,
definitively, US *MUST* be excluded for any next meetings, as this is
totally unacceptable.

I will like to know how many folks have been this time under this
situation.

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:50:08 -0500

The IETF can't tell the TSA or DHS what to do, but it can decide to  
hold its meetings elsewhere.

US immigration is sometimes quick (I've passed it in 10 minutes in DC  
two years ago) and sometimes slow, but it's always more intrusive  
than practically any other country.

The problem is that I think a majority of the attendees live and work  
in the US, so always holding it in Europe is not the answer either,  
although you and I would have liked that.

I guess that's why a lot of meetings happen in Canada: close to the  
US for the US people, but you can skip US immigration with a direct  
flight.

On Jul 22, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Michal Krsek wrote:

> seems strange for me. I've entered US in Atlanta and have to say  
> I've got only two questions:
>
> a) Trip purpose
> b) Length of the stay
>
> Passed all the queues in about 20 minutes (including 15 minutes of  
> waiting for my luggage).
>
> This has to be shortest immigration pass in my history (last time  
> I've spent about 20 minutes talking to immigration officer about my  
> t-shirt - there has been USS Missouri on it and he has been on  
> board during WW 2nd).
>
> I have to say that if immigration control will go same way for a  
> while, I'll not be asked about anything during my next visit :-)
>
>            Regards
>                Michal
>
> P.S: BTW I'd like to see IETF meeting in Spain - would you like act  
> as local volunteer?
>

---

From: "Clint Chaplin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:03:33 -0700

OTOH, when I traveled to Toronto a month ago for a standards meeting
(from the US, and I'm a US citizen), I got questioned for 15 minutes.

Turns out I forgot to say the magic word: "meeting".  They thought I
was going to do actual work during my visit, and they didn't like
that.

-- 
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Principal Engineer
Corporate Standardization (US)
SISA

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:22:32 -0500

> since the flight landed until being able to come to the hotel.

I entered the country in Detroit and for 20 minutes the lines at  
immigration for visitors didn't move. Then we got to walk over to the  
citizen/resident part and I could enter the country 10 minutes later.  
The immigration official only wanted to know why I'm here and how  
long I'm staying (naming the actual date of your departure seems to  
help a bit). But curiously, the customs official wanted to know what  
I did for a living. Maybe that had something to do with the $45 worth  
of goods that are staying in the US that I declared (a book I took  
with me for someone).

Are you still entering the US on the visa waiver program? You may  
have an easier time if you apply for a visa, that way, they check you  
out real good once and that should be it.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:44:51 -0700 (PDT)

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, Clint Chaplin wrote:
> Turns out I forgot to say the magic word: "meeting".  They thought I was 
> going to do actual work during my visit, and they didn't like that.

The USCIS doesn't like that either.  Note for future arrivals.

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:37:16 +0200

Hi,

> when arriving to US this time.

Heard this from a few other people as well. The selection process seems to be 
incredibly random. I had no problems whatsoever even though

- I have an almost brand-new passport (others I talked to were taken to 
secondary just because of that)
- There's a visa stamp of immigration into Egypt just a few months ago, in 
arabic letters (I guess that's because the imm officer forgot to look through 
all the visa pages in my passport. The stamp was on the last page, which is 
actually the first for RTL languages. I was "impressed" by this 
very "professional" passport handling. )
- I have black hair, blue eyes and wear a (minimal) beard. I have heard by 
several people that this is supposed to make me suspect.
- I had a German magazine with a big tank and "War or Peace" on its cover (GEO 
magazine, great article if you speak German).
- I'm a Waiver, and it's my first visit to US.

The imm officer just asked me where I'm going, what the IETF is (I kept the 
explanation short ;-) ) and where I work. He didn't find it curious that I 
said I live in Germany, while I work in Luxembourg (daily border commuter).

After all those stories about immigration into the US I was seriously worried 
that I'm aggregating too many "bad signs", but I just went through smoothly.

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:53:22 +0200

>> was going to do actual work during my visit, and they didn't like that.

I know the IETF isn't a conference, but "Internet conference" usually
ensures no further questions. However, it's highly variable; I've even been
asked to show my company ID badge once or twice.

Being polite, however tired and annoyed you are, is also helpful.

     Brian

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:16:57 +0200

Hi all,

> I will like to know how many folks have been this time under this situation.

I came in through Cincinnatti and it took me less than 10 minutes to get
through immigration.

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--"
# Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment."

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:20:09 +0100

US imm (like many other countries, including UK for UK citizens) is a 
lottery. The IETF ain't gonna change that.

This time the God of Small Queues smiled on me: it was 19:00 last Friday 
and I stood in line for at least 45 seconds at immigration.  The lady 
was polite and straightforward.  The intrusive procedures were 
mechanical but fast and she didn't complain that there was nowhere to 
stamp my passport.  I was here 'to attend a convention' which is a good 
form of words that doesn't raise issues of speaking (for money perhaps 
:-( ) and  would be leaving in a week. All done in less than 3 minutes 
with no hassle.  Of course, the luggage was still making its leisurely 
way from plane to carousel, but we can't blame that on US imm.

Last time in Boston was much the same, but the time before in Toronto 
was a nightmare: long queues, surly agent, assumption of bad faith etc, 
etc.  I nearly swore never to come to the US ever again.

/Elwyn

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:03:11 -0500

On Jul 22, 2007, at 11:44 PM, ext Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>> Turns out I forgot to say the magic word: "meeting".  They thought  
>> I was going to do actual work during my visit, and they didn't  
>> like that.

That works for many countries where going for business means one  
needs a different kind of visa.  For example, when we had the IETF in  
Korea.

Bob

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:17:34 -0500

>>>>> "Clint" == Clint Chaplin <[email-masked]> writes:
    Clint> Turns out I forgot to say the magic word: "meeting".  They
    Clint> thought I was going to do actual work during my visit, and
    Clint> they didn't like that.

  Yes, that is indeed the most important word to say to Canadian
immigrations.  It used to be somewhat effective for US immigration, but it
seems not.

- -- 
]            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"); [

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:20:28 +0200

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:20:14 -0500

>been USS Missouri on it and he has been on board during WW 2nd).

That is 2007-1945 = 62 years from now. The immigration officer must be very old ;-) [I wouldn't be surprised retired officers would be on call again to process the immigration queues]

Thierry.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:45:19 +0100

> lottery. The IETF ain't gonna change that.

When I landed Saturday at Chicago we had a 2-ish hour wait getting through
passport control because their system failed.   Some believe it was the
fingerprint recognition system, but since the US line also didn't move I'm
not so sure.   The queues were static for an hour or so maybe, while 
whatever the problem was was fixed.    The backlog would have been bad 
for anyone coming in after.   There wasn't any explanation announced when
things did get moving.

That could I guess happen anywhere, but if you landed late Saturday afternoon
it might have delayed you more than usual.

Tim

---

From: Mauricio Vergara Ereche <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:36:01 -0400

> when arriving to US this time.

Hi!

I came in via Dallas and it took me only 15 minutes to wait in the line... 
Then they asked me 2 or 3 questions and that was it.

It's my second time here in the US and the last time I came I didn't have much 
trouble either. Maybe I was lucky :-)

-- 
Mauricio Vergara Ereche                 User #188365 counter.li.org
NIC Chile                                       mave [@] nic [.] cl
Miraflores 222 piso 14, Santiago CHILE                +56 2 9407710
Codigo Postal: 832-0198                           http://www.nic.cl

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:02:27 -0500

> I came in through Cincinnatti and it took me less than 10 minutes  

The problem with the US border control is not that it is more or less  
painful most of the time; I expect pain from that as much as I expect  
pain from the flight itself.

The problem is that the authorities act in a random, *unpredictable*,  
and *unreasonable* way when they want to create a problem.

This makes the US a precarious place to meet.

The fact that some people are for all intents and purposes excluded  
from US meetings by random red tape (being born in the wrong country,  
various entirely avoidable problems with physical passports) does not  
help either.

Gruesse, Carsten

PS.: My "immigration" experience this time was unproblematic, once I  
had gotten through the nearly non-moving lines.

---

From: Jiri Kuthan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:15:42 +0200

Sometimes it begins even earlier: my fellow employees with Romanian passport
living in Germany have been denied visa on thr grounds of not having shown
sufficient ties to their country of residence. (For some reason immigration
authorities didn't consider the massive quantity of running code they have 
contributed :-)) Which would indeed speak for an alignment (despite 
I personally like the US as place for IETF meetings and haven't experienced
anything unprofessional or unpleasant other than queues after all the years).

-jiri

--
Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:44:25 -0500

On Jul 23, 2007, at 06:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>>> Turns out I forgot to say the magic word: "meeting".  They  
>>> thought I was going to do actual work during my visit, and they  
>>> didn't like that.
>

The last time I went to Vancouver, B.C. for another standards  
meeting, there was a conference of weapon systems developers in the  
same hotel.  The Canadian passport control people questioned me  
pretty thoroughly until they figured out which meeting I was  
attending.  It wasn't clear at the time why they were so interested.   
It was only later, when I started chatting with people in the hotel  
bar, that it all became apparent.

-- 
j h woodyatt <[email-masked]>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:18:42 +0100

I also got hauled through to secondary immigration checks (because of
brand-new passport supposedly).

The immigration officer escorting me round wouldn't tell me what was
going on. I was taken to fetch my luggage, taken to customs, sent back
to secondary immigration. However once I got to secondary it took about
5 minutes to get stamped in. I then got fast-tracked through to a
customs officer who was meant to do a full search of my suitcase. He was
the one who explained what was going on, he barely looked in my
suitcase, was extremely polite and I was on my way in under 5 minutes.
In total, apart from causing me a certain amount of worry (no matter
that I knew I was not guilty of anything), the process hardly delayed me
more than anyone else on the flight. Worst bit was the 45 minute queue
before we even got to the immigration desks (compounded by the fact that
as soon as our plane landed half the immigration officers seemed to go
off duty...).

Oh, and incidentally, according to
http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-countryeudistr.html Europe accounts
for nearly as much IETF activity as the US (so there is no valid
argument to my mind to holding half of all IETF meetings in North
America)...

Toby 

-----Original Message-----
From: Yoav Nir [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 23 July 2007 01:50
To: [email-masked]; Michal Krsek
Subject: Re: [69ATTENDEES] Immigration issues in US

The IETF can't tell the TSA or DHS what to do, but it can decide to hold
its meetings elsewhere.

US immigration is sometimes quick (I've passed it in 10 minutes in DC
two years ago) and sometimes slow, but it's always more intrusive than
practically any other country.

The problem is that I think a majority of the attendees live and work in
the US, so always holding it in Europe is not the answer either,
although you and I would have liked that.

I guess that's why a lot of meetings happen in Canada: close to the US
for the US people, but you can skip US immigration with a direct flight.

On Jul 22, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Michal Krsek wrote:

> Hi Jordi,
>
>> It seems that the controls are going worst and actually getting 
>> really annoying. I was stuck in 4 different controls, taking me more 
>> than
>> 4 hours
> seems strange for me. I've entered US in Atlanta and have to say I've 
> got only two questions:
>
> a) Trip purpose
> b) Length of the stay
>
> This has to be shortest immigration pass in my history (last time I've

> spent about 20 minutes talking to immigration officer about my t-shirt

> - there has been USS Missouri on it and he has been on board during WW

> 2nd).
>
>> If this is the situation we are going to have in the next meetings 
>> and this is happening to more and more people as I've been told 
>> today, definitively, US *MUST* be excluded for any next meetings, as 
>> this is totally unacceptable.
>
> P.S: BTW I'd like to see IETF meeting in Spain - would you like act as

> local volunteer?

---

From: "Nitin Bahadur" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:26:55 -0700

> brand-new passport supposedly).

I hold an Indian passport and I was held up once at immigration in
India.
Why -> A new passport issued in San Francisco !!

---

From: "Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:33:42 +0200

For the record:
> I also got hauled through to secondary immigration checks 
> (because of brand-new passport supposedly).
> 

Same for me. They did not tell me (or admit when I asked)
if it was because of just having gotten a new passport, but
in that line for secondary check there were lots of people
with a new passport, so I think that was the reason.

It did not bother me much, but it was an extra 20 minutes or
so of extra waiting time.

Bert

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:06:15 -0700 (PDT)

One time I was crossing into the US at O'Hare from London and I (a 
Canadian holding a work permit) presented all my required paperwork to the 
agent.  He looked at it all and looked at me with a blank, vaguely sad, 
expression.

I said "You have to look at this, verify it looks legit, then write this 
number on the back of that, stamp that, tear this section off, staple it 
to my passport, stamp my passport, and tell me I can go."

He said "Thanks," complied, and sent me on my way.

This is not at all relevant to IETF but I just had to get in on the wash 
of immigration stories since that seems to be what this list is for this 
trip...

-MSK

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:13:51 -0500

With apologies to Obi-wan...

> of immigration stories since that seems to be what this list is for this 

I have to ask whether other people who have experienced visa/entry problems 
coming into the United States have tried the "Jedi Mind Trick" that seemed 
to work very well in this case.

"These are not the droids you are looking for ... you don't need to see 
their identity papers ... tell them they can go ..."

Thanks for the smile. I feel like I've been living in a science fiction 
movie for the last five years, and this further confirms that suspicion.

Spencer, who would be absolutely thrilled if we never met in the United 
States again and would even be willing to go to Montreal in November if it 
meant that we could actually meet with the people who want to attend and 
can't.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:44:00 -0500

Yes, the queues are bad, and random.

I'm, however, much more worried about the number of people that can't get 
to the meeting because the visa processing is taking a completely 
unpredictable amount of time.

This time, the co-chair of one of my groups has not received an answer to 
his visa application in time to make the trip.

                       Harald

--On 22. juli 2007 18:50 -0500 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> totally

---

From: Federico Lucifredi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:48:35 -0400

I have to second Murray's comment, lets move on to another subject --
and I am not an unsympathetic US citizen, I am on a visa myself.

 Best -F

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Canadian holding a work permit) presented all my required paperwork to
> the agent.  He looked at it all and looked at me with a blank, vaguely
> sad, expression.
> 

-- 

_________________________________________
-- "'Problem' is a bleak word for challenge" - Richard Fish
(Federico L. Lucifredi) - http://www.lucifredi.com

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:23:04 -0500

Hi Michal,

Changed subject ...

The main reason why I've not progressed with the idea of an IETF in Madrid
seems to be because the hotel is not downtown. However is much better
located and has much better public transport that places where we have met
before, such as Dallas or San Diego. In fact, both times when the IETF venue
was "rejected" we had an IETF in San Diego shortly after. Quite curious
situation !

The other issue I see is that we really need to have an IETF in regions such
as Latin America and Africa. May be Africa in 2-3 years, because I'm not
sure there are now good venues available, but in Latin America, I can see
venues available that could be confirmed for 1-2 years from now. Locations
such as Mexico, Brazil, Chile and probably Argentina have those venues
available I believe.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Michal Krsek <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:20:14 -0500
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> CC: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: [69ATTENDEES] Immigration issues in US
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
>> this

---

From: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:48:35 +0200

Jordi,

> as Latin America and Africa.

Why?

- --
Shane

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:59:12 -0400

Given the horror stories I have been hearing from people involved with the 
Pan Am Games in Rio- I don't think Rio is ready for IETF.

Janet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to 
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit 
written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of 
e-mail for such purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]> wrote on 07/24/2007 

> >> It seems that the controls are going worst and actually getting 
really
> >> annoying. I was stuck in 4 different controls, taking me more than 4 
hours
> > seems strange for me. I've entered US in Atlanta and have to say I've 
got
> > Passed all the queues in about 20 minutes (including 15 minutes of 
waiting
> > This has to be shortest immigration pass in my history (last time I've 
spent
> > about 20 minutes talking to immigration officer about my t-shirt 
-there has
> >> If this is the situation we are going to have in the next meetings 
and
> > I have to say that if immigration control will go same way for a 
while, I'll
> > P.S: BTW I'd like to see IETF meeting in Spain - would you like act as 
local

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:11:40 -0500

>> as Latin America and Africa.

Indeed.

I believe the current model is to locate IETF meetings in venues convenient to 
significant constituencies of *current* participants.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:13:54 -0500

Because we can't come to US if immigration is getting worst, because it will
be cheaper, because IETF need to be met where other people is participating
(more and more people from those regions is coming to meetings and they
should have the same opportunities), etc.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
> Organización: ISC
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:48:35 +0200
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> CC: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: [69ATTENDEES] Meetings in other regions
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Jordi,
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFGpmWjMsfZxBO4kbQRAkLRAJ9NP3kp0kRNk8w5u3m9o2W00q9SrACgoksp
> bzHy9yJ12DijJIfHZcBTDOM=
> =wANE
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:23:23 +0100

The current algorithm for choosing venues is distinctly flawed in that
it allows for 50% of meetings to be in North America. Currently North
America only accounts for 40%of IETF work...

Clearly if you also take into account the excessive problems caused by
US Immigration (which is getting worse according to mails on this list),
then it would be sensible to consider other venues. Unfortunately if we
are tied to having meetings in the Hilton you have to have the meeting
in a venue with a sufficiently large Hilton...

Toby 

PS, I think this thread, taken in parallel with the threads on noisy
meeting rooms and problems with immigration are directly on topic for
this list (at least this is the most obvious one to discuss them on at
present)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 24 July 2007 16:12
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [69ATTENDEES] Meetings in other regions

Shane Kerr wrote:
>> The other issue I see is that we really need to have an IETF in 
>> regions such as Latin America and Africa.
> 
> Why?

Indeed.

I believe the current model is to locate IETF meetings in venues
convenient to significant constituencies of *current* participants.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:17:16 -0500

On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 04:59:12PM -0400,
 Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 251 lines which said:

> Given the horror stories I have been hearing from people involved
> with the Pan Am Games in Rio- I don't think Rio is ready for IETF.

The Internet Governance Forum, this autumn, takes place in Rio. I'll
report :-)

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:31:58 -0500

I disagree, we have discussed this tons of times, and it was clear that a
balance is needed, and we never met in those regions and people from there
is starting to participate, so we need to be fair with them. That said, it
will be fair to ourselves, because we will have less traveling issues and
lower cost.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
> Organización: Brandenburg InternetWorking
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:11:40 -0500

---

From: Nico <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:29:48 -0500

> in a venue with a sufficiently large Hilton...

None of which justifies meeting in South America or Africa, which was
the topic of the sub-thread you were responding to.

The problems with U.S. immigration may or may not be getting worse or
better -- but U.S. immigration certainly seems much too unpredictable
according to the posts on this list, and that is a real problem.  I
would hope that those signs you see about immigration staff being the
face of the nation aren't merely pithy bromides, but I take the U.S.
persons line, so I wouldn't know from personal experience.  Perhaps
those signs indicate how to send feedback?

Nico
--

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:34:07 -0500

We are NOT tied to Hilton at all. We have a good deal with them, but is a
non-exclusive contract, so we can use other venues as required.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:23:23 +0100
> Conversación: [69ATTENDEES] Meetings in other regions
> Asunto: RE: [69ATTENDEES] Meetings in other regions
>

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:39:14 +0200

>> as Latin America and Africa.

[At the risk of repeating what was already said by others or even myself
in earlier threads on the same topic - it's like any TV serie, we know
the pros and cons and we also know it's going to end the same way,
everyone meeting in Minneapolis or San Diego ;-). But how to miss a TV favourite ? So:]

I would say that having a meeting in other regions will boost
attendance and later involvment at the IETF from people in these
regions. I would use Korea as an example: before the IETF was held in
Seoul in 2003, contribution from Korea was quite limited, but now Korea
is major player in many working groups.

Of course, I do understand that some may think the IETF is not designed
to help other nations to catch up with Internet technologies (I think
it should), but this kind of protectionist thinking would imply that
the IETF is not independent and is a puppet in someone's hands - what
many people outside the IETF (http://www.ietf.org/tao.html explains
what is the IETF and how it is governed).

Whereas I would agree that currently Latin America and Africa is
somewhat limited I would also wonder if we - as a community - don't
share part of the responsability for the current situation.

Regarding Spain, I do not understand why the IETF meeting has never
been held there though there is evident support and will from national
there. And I do agree that besides nice weather in San Diego, getting
there several times over the past few years was totally unjustified and
the chosen hotel was unpractical for many of us.

And here in Chicago, the IETF may have a deal with Hilton, but I think
the room prices is skyrocketting. In some situation, I think I would
prefer paying more expensive meeting fees and save on the hotel room.
This may prove cheaper for many.

Last time I proposed to meet in Dubai. They have great hotels, and it's
a hub relatively easy to access for everyone. 

Or - we never did this - we could rent Queen Elisabeth on a cruise over
the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean, e.g. starting in Tokyo and ending in
San Diego, so that everyone would be happy and take only 1 long-haul
flight. Doing so 3 times a year we may get a good deal.

Thierry

---

From: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:42:59 +0200

On 2007/07/24 23:07, [email-masked] wrote:
> then it would be sensible to consider other venues. 

To be fair, this time the immigration was harmless compared to what
I experienced last year when coming through Washington/Dulles.
The wait for the baggage was rather long, though.

Regarding the early morning noise: well, I'm still so jet-lagged that
I'm up anyway at this time. That might change after tonight's social,
though.

/ol
-- 
-=-  Otmar Lendl  --  [email-masked]  -=-

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:45:17 -0500

>Why not?

At the risk of repeating myself:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg42787.html

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Think glocally.  Act confused.

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:45:57 -0500

I vote we buy an Island in the Maldives or in Dubai and setup a
permanent IETF community, so there is never a change of venue.

> From: Otmar Lendl [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2007 7:43 AM
> To: [email-masked]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:49:19 +0100

> is major player in many working groups.

That seems to be a good point.

How open is the organisation process?   I'm not really aware of what
locations get considered, or who offers to host particular meetings.

I think the advanced location arrangements have taken vast strides
forwards (e.g. being able to book hotels more than 1 meeting ahead :)
but I'm not sure the selection process is that open... or is it?

For example, have Joburg or Bangalore ever been put forward or considered?

Tim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:01:27 +0200

> but I'm not sure the selection process is that open... or is it?

The problem is that both hotel contracts and sponsoring discussions
are sensitive and can be ruined by public discussion. But there is no
point deciding to go to Xanadu unless there is a willing sponsor and
a successful hotel negotiation. So I don't see how the process can be
opened up very much.

     Brian

---

From: "Michal Krsek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:20:01 -0500

Hi Tim,

> but I'm not sure the selection process is that open... or is it?

for meeting at Prague, we found facilities that fit corresponding I-D
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-network-requirements-00.txt
mainly focused for network and size issues

Then tried to secure as much money from local community as possible.

Then offered venue to IETF/NSS - they went for hotel inspection and hotel 
pricing negotiations. It took about a year all together. It didn't be so 
easy like point in e-mail IETF/NSS to some locality.

Until the final decission there weren't any warranty that the meeting will 
be in Prague. AFAIK there were three or more localities for that time.

            Regards
                Michal

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:21:49 +0300

Hi,

I think is definitely a mail worth answering on this mailing list, though,
this is off-topic for the list. However, in hope that this would bring us
more future hosts and good locations I do answer this.

The selection process is not really open as such. The locations are selected
based on price, suitability, and potential/willing hosts among other
requirements. However, you can influence very greatly the possible locations
by being willing to host a meeting.

Thus, if you are willing to host in a certain place that suits the IETF that
is relatively convenient (and I understand this is different for different
people - like we have seen the difference in discussion in IETF68 and IETF69
discussion lists) to get to, please contact the IAOC, IAD, or Terry Monroe
as described in http://iaoc.ietf.org/host_sponsor.html.

To kind of summarize this, if you have a appropriate place and money to
host, the IAOC is very interested to hear about it.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:57:39 -0500

So, looking at	http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt, and cutting
the dates and hosts out, and leaving just country, and just swapping
a couple so that the pattern is almost obvious

Spring 2008 - 71st IETF	         Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Summer 2008 - 72nd IETF          Location: Europe (Provisional)
Fall 2008 - 73rd IETF            Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Spring 2009 - 74th IETF          Location: Europe (Provisional)
Fall 2009 - 76th IETF            Location: North America (Provisional)
Summer 2009 - 75th IETF          Location: Asia (Provisional)
Spring 2010 - 77th IETF          Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Summer 2010 - 78th IETF          Location: Europe (Provisional)
Fall 2010 - 79th IETF            Location: Atlanta, GA, USA        
Spring 2011 - 80th IETF          Location: Europe (Provisional)
Summer 2011 - 81st IETF          Location: Asia (Provisional)
Fall 2011 - 82nd IETF            Location: North America - Canada (Provisional)
Spring 2012 - 83rd IETF          Location: Asia (Provisional)
Summer 2012 - 84th IETF          Location: North America - Canada (Provisional)
Fall 2012 - 85th IETF            Location: Europe (Provisional)
Spring 2013 - 86th IETF          Location: North America (Provisional)

So, assuming that "North America", but Canada not specified means US,
and does not mean: Mexico, Cuba or St.Pierre+Michelon (a french
possession near Newfoundland) or Greenland, every *second meeting* is in
the US until the 81st, and then Canada gets some turns.

If I assume that "North America" could in fact mean Canada and Mexico,
then we could have 4 of the next 16 meetings in the US.  Some have
called for returning to places that worked out for us, and I see that we
are going to Minneapolis again. (except that it's in the US, that's fine
with me!) 

In Canada, the primary choices are Vancouver, Montreal and
Toronto.  Secondary choices are Calgary and Ottawa. Calgary has
significantly better airtravel connections, and I suspect has a better
conference facility.  

{Ottawa is really no worse than Yokohama in theory: it's 1.5 hour train
 ride from a significantly well connected airport (Montreal), but we
 aren't organized for such train usage, nor do I think we can actually
 fit all of the IETF into a single conference facility. Maybe two hotels
 across the street from each other.  And our hotels are rather busy
 during each of our normal meeting periods.}

I therefore suggest that if you want the "North America" meetings to not be
in the US, and you don't want to go back to Vancouver and Montreal
regularly, then we have to either move some meetings to Africa/South
America, or we have to find places in Mexico.

I note that if one of the goals of alternating back and forth across the
atlantic is to equalize travel costs, that it's probably equally
expensive to travel south from the northern hemisphere, so my costs and
Jordi's to attend in Johanesburg or Santiago are probably the same.

- --

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:50:02 -0500

The question of flight cost is not really so easy to balance, except for
those in the same region where the meeting is hosted, which means that it is
being cheaper to participate in IETF, most of the time, for US and (I guess)
Canada folks.

I tend to thing that flying from US (or Canada) to US, or US (or Canada) to
Canada is much cheaper than from Europe to US. For me usually traveling to
Canada is more expensive and more time consuming than to Canada, but this
may not be the same for people in UK or France, for example. Instead, for me
flying to LAC (Latin America and Caribbean) is typically cheaper and faster
than flying to US, and the same is true for some Africa locations (just a
few of them, but probably the major spots where venues may be available and
"political" situation may be feasible for a "secure" IETF meeting).

However, hotels and food is also cheaper in LAC and Africa. Now is also
cheaper in US for people using Euros in the own countries, but this is not
always the same.

Traveling to Asia, most of the time is the most expensive for me, but
despite that, I still believe we need to do much more meetings in Asia (and
of course Europe).

Some times traveling from Europe to Europe may be more expensive than to
LAC, unless you book the flight much in advance. That's also due to the fact
that you probably are in the destination one less day than when flying to
another continent, so the fare is higher, but this may depend on the
airline.

So making the meetings within a given region, typically make it cheaper and
easier (including less traveling time generally) to participate the people
in that region, and this is why I'm trying to balance making meeting in LAC
and Africa, and increase the number of them in Asia and Europe.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:57:39 -0500
> Para: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Finger me for keys
> 
> iQEVAwUBRqbYQYCLcPvd0N1lAQI/jwf/RrBlxfuYwWCd6c2N9BQNqsmJHvY+GiXx
> zfrXI56sFanI7CsNmRFgSL1dU8XSDQBlEsv20ZoOnHzBSP2SRoEHJLSoNIaTb5fa
> w6Fx35W7gOZAwQYde/LRUalyTrf9tEyZDXYUIEKeHpWx/cOdOTNf0RT/egpGhH/9
> AmDs1J0d1rY6qmOfuGSqnPaUUjf59vpAZ+4JNr+WPilQ6tJ8AWBqaPeUX5QWZXT3
> gL7PViYm9DiPC0akBulW4zVPnLWR+FRho4zqP1FkpWjcYtOEciYwUWC5HnkGPCSR
> d4Ljbg1Vd3oSE2CzsNrR5UTxyr+Lt7O5H0J6AvrSHp5xgH/hktZAAw==
> =VsaJ

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Nico <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:05:26 -0500

> cheaper in US for people using Euros in the own countries, but this is not

For sufficiently long trips (and IETF meetings qualify) hotel and food
costs tend to be the bigger expense.  But don't think that reality will
match expectations: off-hotel food was quite good and inexpensive in
Prague, but hotel costs and hotel food were outrageous.

Also, the Paris meeting produced a number of complaints about
pickpocketing and such security problems; I'd expect to hear similar
things about a meeting in Rio, say (but a meeting in Rio would be nice,
IMO).

Nico
--

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:20:44 -0500

I would offer we go to Thailand:

Relatively well connected by air from everywhere

Relatively safe (unless you do unsafe things, but that gets you in trouble
everywhere)

Absolutely inexpensive

> things about a meeting in Rio, say (but a meeting in Rio would be nice,

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:21:13 -0500

On Jul 24, 2007, at 23:57, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> ...or we have to find places in Mexico.

Less then thirty seconds of Google-fu led me to believe that Centro  
Banamex in Mexico City could easily meet the need for physical  
meeting facilities, though a smaller venue might be more  
appropriate.  There also appear to be conference venues in Cancun,  
but I think hotel costs might be higher in a resort town depending on  
seasonal rates.

I suspect the problem is not finding places in Mexico, but finding  
*hosts* in Mexico.  Maybe someone from LACNIC could help there.

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:23:20 +0200

I'd just like to verify Jordi's comment. The Hilton deal is non- 
exclusive, but the IETF certainly do get benefits out of choosing  
Hilton hotels for the duration of the contract.

- kurtis -

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:25:20 +0200

>costs tend to be the bigger expense.  

This I don't agree. My flight to Chicago from Paris cost me 1400 euros.
5 nights at the Hilton, though much more expensive than what I had to
pay in Prague, is still cheaper than the flight. My flight to Prague
was also inexpensive and this IETF costs me twice what I had to pay in
Prague.

> But don't think that reality will

Depending where you stay. In Europe, there are typically a lot of hotel
choices, and one can easily find a friendly hotel and walk or take
public transportation to the venue. Something it's typically difficult
to do in San Diego.

One typical reason for which I would be happy to have more meetings in
Europe is jet-lag and travel time (when the meeting is held in North
America, and assuming we stay until Friday lunch time until the last
meeting is over, and assuming there are long-haul flights in the
afternoon, Europeans and Asians won't be back home before Saturday
night. Jet-lag and travel times have to be shared among participants
from different regions.

Thierry

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:30:44 -0500

There are several venues located in Mexico already, I can confirm ... And
hopefully a host will soon come on board, I know they are lurking this list
and regularly attending IETF, secretariat is also aware :-)

Regards,
Jordi

> De: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:21:13 -0500

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

---

From: "Dae Young KIM" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:32:40 +0900

Hi folks,

I've not been following up with this thread and so have no clear idea where
the discussion heading for.

Yet, just for your information, I hope you also consider the possibility of
coming to Korea again in a few years. If there's enough emotion for that, I
might try again to secure hosts in Korea to invite yet another IETF meeting.

... from the local organizer of the past Seoul IETF meeting in 2004, DY.

-- 
DY

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:38:43 +0200

> This may prove cheaper for many.

Just a few general comments from an individual that happens to be on  
the IAOC...

The IAOC for every meeting evaluates a number of locations and sites  
and weigh pros and cons against each other. There are many locations  
the IETF has never been to, for a variety of reasons. There are  
certainly locations that I personally think we should go to, but the  
IETF has since long used as it's guiding principle used that the  
locations are among other criteria picked in order to minimize travel  
costs for the people that do the work in the IETF. The IAOC regularly  
looks at this and evaluates what would be an appropriate mix. We are  
now working on deciding locations and dates longer out in the future  
and we will hopefully be able to announce these soon. The advantage  
with this approach is that we will have more leverage on negotiating  
hotels and attendees will be able to plan their travel longer in  
advance. The disadvantage of doing this is that it will take longer  
for a change in location distribution to take effect if it was that  
we based on data collected determined that was to happen. Personally  
I think this is an acceptable trade-off.

- kurtis -

---

From: "Andrew Allen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:42:40 -0400

While I personally agree with Eric that Thailand is a nice place for a
meeting. There was a big problem at a recent standards meeting of
another body because many delegates from several companies were unable
to attend because of "security concerns".

While I agree with Eric that Bangkok at least is "relatively safe
(unless you do unsafe things, but that gets you in trouble everywhere)"
currently there is some political instability in that country and also a
low level guerilla war in the southern provinces. Whilst my view is such
concerns are exaggerated the fact is that several companies did not
allow their delegates to attend the meeting probably because of
insurance and liability issues.

I think such issues may also be relevant to some of the other African
and South American destinations that some other people are proposing on
this thread. I know that another standards body was planning to have a
meeting in Brazil with Rio or San Paulo being the envisioned
destinations but they ended up in the far less interesting capital
Brazilia because of these kinds of issues.

I think this would be as big an issue as the problem of some people
being unable to get visas for the US.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Burger [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:21 AM
To: Nico; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [69ATTENDEES] Meetings in other regions

Relatively safe (unless you do unsafe things, but that gets you in
trouble
everywhere)

Absolutely inexpensive

> things about a meeting in Rio, say (but a meeting in Rio would be
nice,

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:24:53 -0400

[Not sure why I chose this particular note to followup to... this is a
 general comment.]

> My flight to Chicago from Paris cost me 1400 euros.

First, haggling over costs of hotels and flights and etc. is tough.  If
we pick Paris that has cost implications for some people.  If we pick
Dallas that has cost implications for other people.  Etc.  There is no
global min here, I bet.  While I know that individuals, their companies
and their managers are cognizant of these things.  But, in the aggregate
the IETF should just strive to keep costs like hotels and food within a
reasonable ballpark and leave it at that.

Second, one thing that I haven't heard mention is attendee's time.  I am
always much more cognizant of the time sink of an IETF than I am of the
direct costs.  Coming to IETF impacts my work.  I am not saying that
IETF is without benefit (as of course if that was the case I would not
come), but non-IETF things do suffer.  So, I (and, I know I am not
alone) am much more inclined to come to meetings that are close to me.
I am not saying I will not travel far to attend IETF meetings (and, in
fact, I have).  I am saying that the rule of thumb of generally
distributing the meetings by looking at who is writing the I-Ds seems
like a pretty decent strategy to me.

allman

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:31:58 -0500

> *hosts* in Mexico.  Maybe someone from LACNIC could help there.

Many of the companies that are hosts work world-wide anyway.

But what's up with this host deal? The IETF is already _making_ money  
on the meetings from the meeting fees, why do we need to squeeze even  
more out of a host?

I have no idea what's going behind the scenes, but the meeting  
location selection is rather broken from where I'm sitting. I've been  
trying to float the notion of having one in The Hague, or Holland in  
general. There aren't any Hiltons with 1000+ rooms and matching  
conference facilities there, but it could work very well in a way  
similar to Vienna or Paris. However, my requests for information  
about the number of rooms required etc have never resulted in  
anything useful. I'm pretty sure it would be possible to get stuff  
like the terminal room and connectivity sponsored even without an  
official host, but in order to get that stuff rolling, I would need  
at least a nibble from the IETF.

And that's nothing compared with what Jordi has lived through.

Iljitsch

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:33:59 -0700

Dae Young,

> might try again to secure hosts in Korea to invite yet another IETF meeting.

I still have very good memories of our meeting in Korea and I
certainly hope that the IAOC will take you up on this mail!

> ... from the local organizer of the past Seoul IETF meeting in 2004, DY.

As somebody who has been the host for two times, I know that hosting
the meeting is an enormous amount of work and I very much appreciate
that you are willing to do it again :-).

David Kessens
---

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:40:59 +0100

I think this summarises the arguments very clearly and indeed it is
obvious to distribute the meetings according to the distribution of the
draft authors. However currently the distribution is very broken and
heavily biased toward North America. The IETF has moved on and
significantly more than half its work comes from authors outside the US.

Toby

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Allman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 25 July 2007 11:25
To: Thierry Ernst
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [69ATTENDEES] Meetings in other regions 

allman

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:45:58 +0300

Iljitsch,

The host pays for the network, t-shirts, social and some other costs, which
don't come out of the meeting fees. Need quite a bit of money - the actual
amount is dependent on the location. The amounts can be between $100k-$300k
depending on many variables.

The meeting fee covers the IETF side of the cost of the meetings. That is
usually the meeting rooms, food during the week (those cookies cost real
money), etc. In addition, running the IETF operations is paid through the
meeting fees (the secretariat, web pages, mailing lists. etc).

I can assure you that IETF is _not_ making money. There is no secret account
where the money would go. Actually the opposite.

If you are interested to organize a meeting, and get the funding for setting
up the network, internet connectivity, and help us to find a suitable
setting we would be extremely thankful. Please, contact Terry Monroe from
ISOC ([email-masked]) for more information.

Remember, however, just a possible location is not all of it. There has to
be a model to get the things up and running we need - and it is not cheap or
easy (having been on the hosting side twice, believe me, I know.)

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:48:14 -0500

OK, I'm off to write another I-D...

But seriously, there's no denying that locations in the US, Europe  
and Canada are hubs of international flights. People from these three  
regions make up a majority of attendees, and it's usually either a  
single flight or one relatively easy connection to get to these places.

If we were to hold a meeting in, say, New Zealand, most participants  
would need 2-3 connections just to get there.  All these flights take  
a lot of time, and also cost a lot of money. So these are pretty much  
the same criteria.

Same goes for most locations in Africa. For Brazil you can probably  
find flights from most places, but not at the same frequency as  
flights to Chicago or Frankfurt.

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:13:07 -0500

On 25-Jul-2007, at 11:48, Yoav Nir wrote:

> If we were to hold a meeting in, say, New Zealand, most  
> participants would need 2-3 connections just to get there.

Ah, but it'd be worth it. :-)

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:21:44 -0500

I disagree on the Brazil situation. I've been there for several meetings and
never had any issue, same with African locations.

The chances to get a problem are probably statistically the same in most of
the locations, specially for such a big group. We had terrorism warnings in
Paris, the same as there are bombs some times in Spain, same as pickpockets
everywhere. For me is much a bigger thread, talking from a statistical point
of view, spending so much time with immigration in an unpredictable way.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Andrew Allen <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:42:40 -0400
> Para: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>, Nico <[email-masked]>, JORDI
> PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your
> system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission
> by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:30:39 -0700 (PDT)

Just a reminder to everyone:

IETF meetings result from three main components:

1. A suitable hotel or convention center

2. A local host or at least some organization on the ground willing to 
   do the required legwork.

3. Sufficient funding from either the host or a collection of sponsors

Any discussion of "foo is a nice place" is probably not helpful to the 
people who ultimately make decisions on this since they are already 
well aware of a large collection of such places. But a combination of
2 and 3 above and a real "proposal" should be forwarded to the IETF
Executive Director and the IOAC.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:54:08 -0500

This is way I indicated in several occasions that our model for hosting is
broken.

The host should be different than the sponsor. Hosts can still facilitate
some local things (such as connectivity, locally required human resources,
etc.), but the sponsors should not choose the venue.

Sponsors should be looked to cover 1 or several IETF meetings costs and then
in parallel different venues be available. The total costs can be then fixed
with some "smaller" local sponsors.

This way will allow that even if a venue is good, there need not to be a
local sponsor(s) (a local hosts is still required) for a meeting to happen
there.

I agree that a set of venues may be presented to the possible sponsors to
try to agree on their preference, but not anymore accepting sponsors
strictly for a specific venue.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:31:58 -0500
> Para: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:20:58 +0200

>> on the meetings from the meeting fees, why do we need to squeeze even

That needs clarifying. The IETF has to meet its total
annual costs using three sources

- meeting fees
- donations and sponsoring
- budget from ISOC

Whether the donations and sponsoring come from "hosts" or
"sponsors" really doesn't matter, and whether they are tied
to meetings really doesn't matter. What matters is that those
three sources add up to the total costs of running the IETF.
If you reduce one of them by a dollar, the other two sources
have to provide that dollar.

Today, the numbers work out that we must run about a 50% surplus
on the meeting fees. If you'd like to reduce the host contribution,
you'll either be asking ISOC to send more money, or be paying a
higher meeting fee.

As for separating sponsorship from hosting, some sponsors will
like that and others will want to host in a specific location.
I think the IAOC needs to be flexible about this.

     Brian