Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-01.txt

From: Corinne Cath <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:06:52 +0100

Hi,

Some thoughts on this intermediate draft:

It is great to see that the discussion about unfiltered Internet access has
been so clearly formulated in the three points below:

The IETF hotel(s), which are one or more hotels in close proximity
      to the venue where the primary IETF room allocations are
      negotiated and the IETF SSIDs are in use, must provide, or permit
      and facilitate, the delivery of a high performance, robust,
      unfiltered and unmodified Internet service for the public areas
      and guest rooms.  This service is typically included in the cost
      of the room.  [Mandatory]

The meeting venue must permit and facilitate the delivery of a
      high performance, robust, unfiltered and unmodified IETF Network.
      [Mandatory]

  Internet Access:
      As an organization, we write specifications for the Internet, and
      we use it heavily.  Meeting attendees need unfiltered access to
      the general Internet and our corporate networks, which are usually
      reached using encrypted VPNs from the meeting venue and hotels,
      including overflow hotels.  We also need open network access
      available at high enough data rates to support our work, including
      the support of remote participation.

I have some questions about the wording on having the IETF meetings in
countries/continents other than those regularly attended. I understand the
reluctance surrounding picking locations in order to encourage local
participation in areas currently underrepresented in the IETF (no existing
metrics for its effectiveness, regular participants are less likely to
participate in person if the new location presents certain barriers to
entry etc.). However, I do believe it would be interesting to reconsider
the specific language on this topic in the draft.

Currently it says: 'Increased participation in the IETF from those other
regions, electronically or in person, could result in basic changes to the
overall pattern, and we encourage those who would like for that to occur to
encourage participation from those regions.' My perspective is that
essentially all of us would like for that to occur. As it means new people
from new regions with new problems, and new solutions, start participating
actively in the IETF. Diversity of approaches brings diversity of solutions.

The current language seems to suggest that the burden of making this happen
is on those who are from such underrepresented regions, or work with
organizations there. This seems unfair, as many of these people are already
comparatively disadvantaged. In addition to experiencing more barriers to
entry to the IETF - they are now also made responsible for bringing in new
people from their region. Perhaps we can find a better way to share that
task.

I would offer the following suggestion: 'Increased participation in the
IETF from those other regions, electronically or in person, could result in
basic changes to the overall pattern. Although the IETF does not activily
use its venue selection as a means to attract new participants, we are
supporting those individuals positioned to encourage participation from
those regions.' This would perhaps also mean that we need to figure out how
we can provide additional support to the individuals capable of mobilizing
more participation from certain regions.

I also want to reiterate the argument I made during the IETF96 meeting in
Berlin about the dangers of selecting the venues in favor of the existing
cohort of participants. A lot of the discussion continues the notion that
venue selection should be geared towards ensuring a group of core people
show up. More people is not necessarily qualitatively better, was said at
several times. While this is certainly true in many contexts, there is a
real danger in sustaining this bias towards the existing group. Namely,
that it undermines our ability to attract new people. I see a chicken and
egg problem here. Or a reoccurring loop if you will: we select in favor of
the existing group --> we can’t seem to attract new people --> we select in
favor of the existing group --> we can’t seem to attract new people --> we
select in favor of the existing group etc.

The discussion of considering the selection of venues as a way to attract
new people was pretty much shut down, but I would like to bring up that it
seemed to have worked in Buenos Aires. Just a thought.

I look forward to the next edition of the draft.

Best,

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email-masked]> wrote:

> This is an intermediate step. I have reorganized the draft along the lines
> that Alissa Cooper suggested, and made my co-contributors authors so that
> they can update and re-post the draft. There is additional work that needs
> to be done responding to comments made by others, but my co-conspirators
> will have to do it, as I am leaving Cisco and my next steps are at this
> point indeterminate.
>
> Best wishes to all.
>
> > On Aug 22, 2016, at 11:50 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Meeting Venue  of the IETF.
> >
> >        Title           : IAOC Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process
> >        Authors         : Ray Pelletier
> >                          Laura Nugent
> >                          Dave Crocker
> >                          Lou Berger
> >                          Ole Jacobsen
> >                          Jim Martin
> >                          Fred Baker
> >       Filename        : draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-
> venue-selection-process-01.txt
> >       Pages           : 17
> >       Date            : 2016-08-22
> >
> > Abstract:
> >   This documents the IAOC's IETF Meeting Venue Selection Process from
> >   the perspective of its goals and thought processes.  It points to
> >   additional process documents on the IAOC Web Site that go into
> >   further detail and are subject to change with experience.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-
> venue-selection-process/
> >
> > There's also a htmlized version available at:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-
> venue-selection-process-01
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-
> venue-selection-process-01
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mtgvenue mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>
>

-- 
Corinne J.N. Cath

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:26:17 +1300

Corinne,

See in line...

> been so clearly formulated in the three points below:
...
> people from their region. Perhaps we can find a better way to share that

I'd like to dig a bit into that argument. Participating in the IETF is not
the starting point for the Internet technical community in a disadvantaged
region. The IETF is somewhat irrelevant until such a community is already
well established. Neither is the starting point when an international
operator parachutes some boxes and expat staff into the region to provide
Internet services. It's when local people, via education and experience, start
to install/operate stuff locally and/or develop software (or hardware?) below
the app layer. And when they talk to each other about, informally or in an
organized way. Stimulating that starting point is not really something the
IETF can do; it's exactly what the Internet Society has done in many instances.

The sentence you quote is pretty ugly with its repetition of 'encourage',
but I think it does reflect the reality: IETF participation from a region
is never going to happen until the region already has an active technical
community.

> more participation from certain regions.

So, s/individuals/organizations and individuals/

...
> seemed to have worked in Buenos Aires. Just a thought.

We just won't know for a couple of years whether a few new people have become
sustained participants. I think a follow-up study on newcomer 'retention'
is sorely needed.

Regards
    Brian