Subject: RE: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs

From: Ian King <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:44:14 -0800

IMHO, people are reading way too much into this.  

Most of the participation is by folks from the US -- that stat is raised at
every meeting.  BTW, the Internet started in the US, those neat maps
displayed at plenary sessions show an overwhelming focus of connectivity in
the US, and many many technology companies are located in the US.  

Notwithstanding, the organization does hold meetings both inside and outside
the US, because the Internet is a global entity with international
involvement.  While this is IMHO a Good Thing, reality is that the longer
trips sometimes pose a problem for some participants -- whether that's
traveling from the US to Australia, or Australia to the US.  Statistically,
the burden hits more people for meetings outside the US, simply because
regardless of where we hold the meetings, there are more attendees from the
US than from any other place.  (At this juncture, I would like to salute the
folks from outside the US who nonetheless attend the majority of US-based
meetings.)  

To those of you outside the US who don't think there are enough meetings
outside the US: IF YOU SPONSOR THEM, WE WILL COME.  I've seen the open,
standing invitations to sponsor meetings -- so step up and sponsor.  

For those who think Australia is a long way to go: you're right, if you are
in North America or Europe.  Many WG chairs may be making an 'economic'
decision -- or their employers have made it for them.  (I'm not going
because I don't want to be away from my new baby daughter yet.)  But since
the work REALLY gets done on the mailing lists (so we say, officially), you
can still make a difference, if you so choose.  Not to say I don't think
there's a lot of value to the face-to-face meetings, but when I chaired a
WG, I got a lot of great input from people who never attended a single WG
session in person.  

Bottom line: go if you can and wish to, don't whine if you can't or won't.
And please quit with the "conspiracy theories" about US-centricity -- it's
an accident of history, nothing more.  Don't expect us Americans (or US
residents) to feel guilty or go slit our wrists over it.  And for whatever
reason, English does seem to serve as a common tongue in the world of
technology -- again, I'm not going to apologize for it.  (And it doesn't
stop us from working hard to figure out how to represent ALL the languages
of humanity in digital form....)  

Please forgive my typing -- my daughter is keeping one arm busy.  
-- Ian King, Speech Product Group, MICROSOFT CORPORATION

-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 3:39 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs

Jeffry;

IETF is certainly US and English centric.

The current rules of IETF does not explicitely prefer some country
so much, though many important organizations have addresses in US
and English is the language of the rules. However, the rules keep
or amplify the US centric tendency, because a large number of US
participants means a large number of IAB/IESG members is likely to
be nominated.

Moreover, English centric IETF meetings are hard to be actively
attended by people whose primary language is not English. Compared
to other International organizations, IETF requires too much in
English capability. Worse, in IETF, inactive participation is
nothing.

Having a meeting in AU does not solve the latter, English, problem.

However,

> The problem I have with the Adelaide meeting is very simple.  With so
> few working groups holding sessions, I can't justify making the trip.
> This would be true for a meeting at any location more than 400 miles
> away.  If only one group that I am interested in is holding a session,
> I can't go.  The powers that be just won't approve it.

it is a good solution for the first, US, problem.

Moreover, you are saying that the recent problem of IETF that there are
too many bogus WGs with too many people is also solved.

Very good.

So, all the future IETF meetings should be held in areas far away
from US and, in addition, where English is not the major language.

There many be an exception once in 10 years, of course.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:47:29 -0800

>standing invitations to sponsor meetings -- so step up and sponsor.  

for the record, we have quite a few potential sponsors outside the US. We
are considering future meetings in London and Tokyo, and have been offered
sites in Geneva, Naples, Beijing, and other places. What tends to be
interesting to find is the US sponsors, not the non-US ones.

>And please quit with the "conspiracy theories" about US-centricity.

Agreed. It is readily argued that there is strong US involvement. Going
from there to some of the places this thread has taken it is quite a leap.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:47:29 -0800

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:53:11 +0000

to people that think that the internet is mostly US centric, and will
go on being so, and that this is relevant to the IETF anyhow -
wrong, wrong, and also wrong!

um the Internet is now mostly commercial - the Eu and Asia each have MORE
money than the US, and also have growth economies. if you work for a
vendor (s/w, h/w, services) and can't find a reason to visit, then yo
uare missing an opportunity to "enhance shareholder value" - as a
shareholder, i would be shocked and dismayed....and think hard about
other vendors...

as an academic/researcher, too, generally, i can easly find good reasons to 
visit people with other viewpoints, and requirements and inventions...

note that microsoft and cisco (examples - there are lots more)
 both set up strong european presences
recently for these reasons. They also have strong asia/pacific
presence - 

using current IETF national representation as a marker for where to
hold meetings is going to lag, rather than lead the right thing to do
imho

note also, that provided the IETF doesnt start mimicing ITU in
choosing
meeting location, a lot of places outside the US offset travel costs
by cheaper accomodation costs.....significantly in some cases
(i admit london england is not a good example for this, though it is
pretty cheap to get to from just about anywhere on average:-)

 cheers

   jon

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:53:11 +0000

cheers

   jon