Subject: IETF Meeting in South America

From: The IAOC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 08:54:12 -0700

As you may know the IAOC has been investigating the feasibility of having an IETF
meeting in South America.  There was a site visit to South America last February. 
We have found two venues that we believe will support a successful IETF meeting
and we would like to get feedback from the community.

The venues are in Buenos Aires.  They meet our requirements for the meeting
space, networking, nearby restaurants and bars, hotel room rates in the mid $200
dollar range, nearby alternate hotels at a broad range of prices, nice area in the
city, safe, direct international flights, and accessible visas.  The IAOC thinks we
could have a successful IETF meeting in Buenos Aires and that attendees would
like the venues.

There has been a consistent level of IETF participation from South and Central
America, and it has been growing since IETF82.  The data on this is posted at 

   http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Regional-Attendance-00.pdf.  

The current meeting regional rotation (announced at IETF79) allows for an
occasional IETF meeting outside of our main regions (Europe, North America,
Asia/Pacific).  

IETF standards are made more valuable the more relevant they are and the more
uptake they get.  IETF standards are also made more robust when all perspectives
are represented during their development.  Encouraging growing participation
will help strengthen the Internet, further encourage participation from those areas
that will see the most growth in the coming years, and will help advance the IETF
in political and international circles which is becoming more of an imperative.

We have asked the IESG for their feedback and they are supportive of a meeting in
South America if there is community support and active participants attend.

Things to consider are that it will be a long trip for the majority of IETFers and the
air fares are more expensive (about 10% to 20% higher than average), though
restaurants are less expensive.  This would be a case where most IETFers would
bear more travel pain and expense.  

The IAOC would like to understand if the IETF community thinks that the IETF
should have a meeting in the next few years in Buenos Aires.  The IAOC would
also like to get feedback on how we can ensure the meeting is as successful as
possible and on ways to grow participation in the region.

We have set up a survey at  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NWYLQCD  where
you can indicate your likelihood of attending, and we encourage you to send your
general feedback to the IETF list <[email-masked]>.

Thanks,
Bob Hinden
IAOC Chair

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:13:04 -0400

I think this is an excellent idea. The Adelaide meeting worked out fine,
and this would be a lot closer for a great many participants than that
meeting was.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:39:50 -0400

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Andrew G. Malis <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think this is an excellent idea. The Adelaide meeting worked out fine, and
> this would be a lot closer for a great many participants than that meeting
> was.

Likewise. --dmm

---

From: Simon Pietro Romano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:41:03 +0200

Being a tango addict, Buenos Aires deserves a huge +1 from me!

Cheers,

Simon

Simon

> general feedback to the IETF list <[email-masked]>.

                     					       _\\|//_
                           				      ( O-O )
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    				Simon Pietro Romano
             				 Universita' di Napoli Federico II
                		     Computer Engineering Department 
	             Phone: +39 081 7683823 -- Fax: +39 081 7683816
                                           e-mail: [email-masked]

		    <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento Ë l'alibi degli 
		    idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
               			                     oooO
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(   )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
					                 \ (            (   )
			                                  \_)          ) /
                                                                       (_/

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 10:59:27 -0700

On May 23, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Andrew G. Malis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think this is an excellent idea. The Adelaide meeting worked out fine, and this would be a lot closer for a great many participants than that meeting was.

(Not that they want us commenting on this thread; that's what the poll is for...)

I suspect that if the meeting is approved, the food in Buenos Aires will be more interesting than it was in Adelaide, at least for many of us. The locals speaking English might also be more understandable. :-)

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:30:34 -0400

Never been to Buenos Aires - but it sounds like a great idea.  I know that
the search has been on for
an acceptable venue in South America for a long while.

Alia

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM, David Meyer <[email-masked]> wrote:

> and

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:42:48 -0500

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>wrote:

> I suspect that if the meeting is approved, the food in Buenos Aires will
> be more interesting than it was in Adelaide, at least for many of us.

> The locals speaking English might also be more understandable. :-)
>
>
In my recent trip to Santiago, Chile, locals not speaking English turned
out to be really painful for someone who can not speak Spanish, like myself.

I hope this is different in BA, but I doubt so.

Behcet

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:49:05 -0400

> (Not that they want us commenting on this thread; that's what

They explicitly asked for comments on this list.

> I suspect that if the meeting is approved, the food in Buenos
> Aires will be more interesting than it was in Adelaide, at
> least for many of us. 

Based on the last business meeting I attended there, there would
certainly be a larger variety of ways in which burned cow is
prepared :-(

But I rather liked Adelaide and would have no objection in
principle to going back there or to some other appropriate Oz or
NZ location.

    john

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:05:22 -0800

On 5/23/13 10:30 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> Never been to Buenos Aires - but it sounds like a great idea. 

I'm skeptical that it will change much - it seems likely to me
that we'll get a bunch of one-time attendees and that we'll be
doing really well to get one new person who becomes a continuing
participant.  That said, I do think it will be *extremely*
valuable to get feedback from those one-time attendees about
what they're seeing in our documents, and that we should be
trying to figure out ahead of time how to engage those one-time
attendees.

Traveling from Fairbanks, pretty much anywhere is a long, long
trip and quite expensive relative to what most people pay for
airfare, so actual location doesn't make that much of a difference
to me personally.  I also don't think it's that big a deal if a
few regulars miss one meeting because it's too far or too
costly or whatever.

So as I said, I'm skeptical, but I think the potential benefits
of giving this a shot outweigh the likely downsides.

Melinda

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 May 2013 19:41:15 -0000

> I suspect that if the meeting is approved, the food in Buenos Aires
> will be more interesting than it was in Adelaide, at least for many of
> us. The locals speaking English might also be more understandable. :-)

If you like steak or pizza and lots of pretty good red wine, the food
in Buenos Aires is quite excellent.  If you want something else, it's
spotty.  But I agree that it's likely to be as good a place in South
America as any to meet.

R's,
John

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 16:13:03 -0400

--On Thursday, May 23, 2013 13:42 -0500 Behcet Sarikaya
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> In my recent trip to Santiago, Chile, locals not speaking
> English turned out to be really painful for someone who can
> not speak Spanish, like myself.
> 

Probably about the same as Santiago, at least in my experience
with both.  The comment about English is Adelaide was presumably
intended as a joke -- The various dialects of Aussie are
probably not a different language from American English, but the
point is occasionally debated.

   john

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 17:39:31 -0300

This is very good news. If done, it would show how the IETF is evolving
and adapting to this new world that it is own creation "the Internet"
has make us live in.

Regards,
as

On 5/23/13 3:30 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> Never been to Buenos Aires - but it sounds like a great idea.  I know
> that the search has been on for

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 17:47:58 -0400

> and adapting to this new world that it is own creation "the Internet"

You seem slightly confused. If you look at the original message, it
talks about there having been increased attendance at IETF meetings
from South and Central America.

As far as I know, it has been and is still more or less the policy of
the IETF to hold meetings where attendees have been coming from. The
purpose of IETF meetings is to contribute to standards development,
not "outreach" or something, which is a goal for other organizations.
If few attend from some part of the world, there will be few/no IETF
meetings there no matter what the population or amount of network use
in that part of the world. I do not see and do not particularly want
any "evolving" in how the IETF decides where to meet.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:14:04 -0300

Today is not enough to only have meetings where attendees are coming
from. That is a parading that we need to break and I think that we are
moving in that direction.

	I am not expecting to agree with me as I do not agree that we only
contribute to standards development.

Regards,
as

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 01:25:06 +0300

For what it is worth, I wanted to provide my perspective on this. I of course believe that it is important that the IETF reaches out to an even more international participation than it already has. This is first of all because we really need the views from different types of organisations and different parts of the world. For instance, I recently had an opportunity to talk to a number of people about peering in different regions. It really opened my eyes about how the Internet experience can differ from what I've been used to so far. We also need to understand how regionally changing requirements for, e.g., emergency communications or whitespace management affect our work. Finally, our international coverage is not just important for our work but also for how we are perceived. For all of these reasons, reaching out to different parts of the world is important, and one aspect of that is rotating through meeting locations around the world.

I would also like to highlight one part of the message from Bob:

> The IAOC would

This is really important, and I hope that we get good feedback on what kinds of things would be useful to do in order to achieve this. That is, we're not just asking a binary question if the meeting is or is not ok. 

Just meeting in some place does not bring too many new participants, at least not in a lasting manner. But combined with some other actions, this may be possible. Are there specific companies or research teams that we could reach out to, and who might want to be involved in the IETF? Are there local events where where it would be useful to have someone from the IETF give a talk? Are there specific IETF or IRTF efforts where we could get more people from South America involved? Should the ISOC fellows program target something different than it has so far, or be scaled up? Other ideas?

Jari

P.S. By coincidence, I happened to visit Buenos Aires last year, and found it to be a fun city. I felt safe and despite not speaking the local language I was able to talk to the friendly locals, order food, access the network, acquire a SIM card (albeit with some bureaucratic and technical difficulties, but I think I can still dig up the MNC numbers that were needed to configure the phone correctly :-), use the airports, rent a car, and find a Finnish sauna. I think the city offers all the essential ingredients for life :-)

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 23:06:07 +0000

On May 23, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
 wrote:

> I am not expecting to agree with me as I do not agree that we only contribute to standards development.

I agree with the substance of Donald's comment. Let me talk for a moment about Adelaide.

In March 2000, the IETF met in Adelaide. I was the person who made the decision to go there. My logic was, as Don's is in this thread, that we have a primary purpose, and that the positioning of meetings was largely about where our attendees came from. At the time, the IETF was perhaps 1500 people, of whom about 675 posted Internet Drafts (I know the number, because I sent them individual emails, in effect running a survey about the advisability of a meeting in Adelaide). We had 8 people from Australia that had been working in the IETF for a number of years, and AARNET was willing to host a meeting. Also at the time, about one author in six was from Europe, and we had very few from Asia. So we were operating on the principle that one meeting in six should be in Europe. I took the perspective that on our 40th meeting, we could have 1/40 in a place that we had a few faithful participants that was well out of the way.

It was not billed or intended as a developmental activity, and it didn't turn out to be one. We still have a small percentage of people from Australia, and thy are still faithful. As far as I know, having a meeting there didn't affect that positively or negatively. It was a fairness thing, extending a courtesy to people who were doing good work over a long period of time.

We now have roughly 1/3 of our attendees and authors from Asia, 1/3 from Europe, and 1/3 from North America. We have a few people from South America, of which you are one, and the only time we have people from Africa is when ISOC pays for them to come. We try to position meetings in those continents once a year, it doesn't quite work for reasons that require an adult beverage to discuss, but we do try. And we get a lot of commentary from folks that would like the IETF to be a development organization. 

There is a political aspect. The ITU pays the air fare for people from developing countries, and friends vote for friends. This is relevant in WSIS/WCIT/WTF, where the ITU periodically offers itself as the SDO of the future. I won't go into that further, but it is the elephant in the room, and there, I have said it.

To my way of thinking, the argument for a meeting in South America is not that maybe possibly we will get more attendees. If they have a reason to come, they will first be on the various mailing lists and contribute in that way, and in time will find it in their business interest to attend in person. You did that, Fernando did that, it's what our Asian colleagues did a decade ago, and it's what our European colleagues did a decade before that. From my perspective, the argument for an IETF meeting in South America, whether in Buenos Aires or somewhere else, is that we have people doing good work (show us the Internet Drafts) that have been participating over a period of time, and - well, we meet where our participants come from, like we did in Adelaide.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:27:54 +1000

On 24/05/2013, at 9:06 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I took the perspective that on our 40th meeting, we could have 1/40 in a place that we had a few faithful participants that was well out of the way.

Does this imply that, if we have a meeting in South America, I'll need to wait another 10 years before I fly less than 24 hours to get to an IETF meeting?

Cheers from Melbourne,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 22:34:50 -0300

I stare at the map of where the IETF meetings occurred
(http://ws.org.br/index.php/IETF_Meetings) and wondering if the fact of
bringing some of the meetings to below the Equator could lead to
increase people participation.

The answer is always negative. Will not increase participation of more
people.

Fellowships will help? Certainly not. Resources are finite.

How then can we increase participation in meetings of the IETF? My
answer to the question may seem strange: increasing the number of annual
meetings.

Currently there are three. How many? To twelve meetings per year, for
example!

As follows:

1. Pass the Annual Meetings of the IETF for two: say late March and late
November;
2. Create two annual meetings in each one of the five RIR regions. For
example, early February and early October. Will be Regional Meetings,
with the same focus of current meetings with an emphasis on contribute
to the next Annual Meeting.

The dates above are only examples. But consider the folowing
complementary ideas:

a. Encourage grants for regional events
b. Create well-defined rules, so that EVERYONE countries in the region
are sequentially headquarters of the regional event, with the exceptions
of the local situation.
c. Annual Events can occur at fixed locations. Innovative and tireless
people could think of IETF City, IETF University, etc. The logistics
personnel could imagine where in the world, the Annual Events would be
great for everyone.
d. Create special Fellowships for participation in Annual Events based
on regional activity of the grantee.
e. Etc.

Regards,

Julião

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 17:46:12 -0800

> Currently there are three. How many? To twelve meetings per year, for

Sounds like a sure-fire way to shift the participation from
skewing towards working engineers to skewing towards professional
standardizers.

How can we encourage people from underrepresented areas to 1)
submit internet drafts, 2) review working group drafts, and 3)
participate in mailing list discussions?

Melinda

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 23:37:49 -0300

I think we will have new challenges to be defined. New opportunities for
change that can stimulate, for example, the coming of researchers
immersed in universities and / or research centers, not yet
participating in the IETF. Maybe they can not submit drafts, but can
contribute to foster the knowledge of those who produce drafts or
working as reviewers. Regarding the participation in discussions of the
mailing lists, I think that they might be involved with reasonable
intensity, ideas, and knowledge.

The IETF can create new types of publications other than RFCs (calling
attention to the debate about in diversity and erica lists).

Perhaps the IETF should and can change (not where it has always been a
success) to capture new people.

Julião

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 18:44:00 -0800

On 5/23/13 6:37 PM, Juliao Braga wrote:
> Maybe they can not submit drafts, but can
> working as reviewers. 

Anyone can submit a draft and anyone can review a draft.  The
barrier to that sort of participation is extremely low.  So
the question is why we aren't seeing more drafts, reviews, and
discussions from people in Central and South America, and
what we can do as an organization to change that.  I have no
problem with meeting in Buenos Aires but I do not have reason
to think that having a meeting there will do anything to
increase active participation from that region.

Melinda

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:02:55 -0700

On May 23, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> So the question is why we aren't seeing more drafts, reviews, and
> discussions from people in Central and South America,

Language?

Regards,
-drc

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 May 2013 03:30:57 -0000

>> discussions from people in Central and South America,

Possibly, but we get quite a lot from parts of Asia where I'd think
the language issue would be more severe.

I agree with Melinda, it would be good to figure out how to get people
in South America more involved in the IETF, but I also agree that
there is no reason to expect that an IETF meeting there would make any
difference.

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:04:31 +0530

> increase active participation from that region.

English is not a first language in many countries other than the US.
Spanish is the predominant language in Central and South America. There are
several cultural barriers as well such as people being hesitant to ask
questions if they have not met people in real life. Not everything about
the IETF is googlable or RTFM'ed. Maybe several co-located meetings or
having people from the IETF speak at universities and regional ISOC
chapters around the meeting might help. Also showcasing the good work done
by their Latin American peers might help as well.

-- Vinayak

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 22:42:40 -0500

Besides the language there is a big digital divide particularly in South
America.

Many of you know that actively participating in this type of forums
requires a non trivial amount of time (plus skills and knowledge.) In
developed countries some IETF members have a better financial situation or
are being sponsored/supported by an array of organizations or other
activities that help pay the bills.

Researchers, students, engineers, you name it, in other parts of the world
including South America are in a daily battle to subsist, including trying
to survive some stupid regulations that do not help development, like
restrictions or taxes on publications, tools, materials, etc. Often is very
hard to obtain the resources to participate at international meetings like
IETF, and in the particular case of Argentina travel expenses are very high
and flight times are longer and with many stops. This is not something new,
in the early days (when I lived in AR) we were always begging to get
support to be able to participate on meetings or similar activities.

One thing that could help is if some companies like Cisco, Google, Juniper,
etc, with presence in the region start sponsoring some individuals that
have been participating or are interested to participate at IETF so they
can have more time and financial resources.

Taking the IETF meeting to Buenos Aires is not a bad idea, but when the
meeting is over the root problem will still be there.

My .02
Jorge

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 04:10:51 +0000

> Does this imply that, if we have a meeting in South America, I'll need to wait another 10 years before I fly less than 24 hours to get to an IETF meeting?

That's a question for the IAOC. For the record, when IETF meetings are not in North America, it's a similar duration trip for me. You're not alone. Like Melinda (in Alaska), you're just an extreme case.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 22:16:29 -0600

On 5/23/13 5:27 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> I took the perspective that on our 40th meeting, we could have 1/40
>> in a place that we had a few faithful participants that was well
>> out of the way.
> 
> Does this imply that, if we have a meeting in South America, I'll
> need to wait another 10 years before I fly less than 24 hours to get
> to an IETF meeting?

Just in time for you to chair those WG sessions on HTTP/3.0... ;-)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 14:55:46 +1000

I weep for you - those NA meetings being 

Sent from my iPhone

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 07:04:46 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 23 May 2013, Jorge Amodio wrote:

> One thing that could help is if some companies like Cisco, Google, 
> Juniper, etc, with presence in the region start sponsoring some 
> individuals that have been participating or are interested to 
> participate at IETF so they can have more time and financial resources.

My take on this is that it would be a good start if someone (not limited 
to the list above, ICANN for instance?) could do more "marketing" for 
IETF, perhaps identifying universities with courses that cater towards 
network engineering, making sure they know how Internet standards are 
developed and how to participate.

Where is a good "executive summary" to give to upper management, outlining 
why they should dedicate resources towards participating in the IETF?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 05:17:44 +0000

On May 23, 2013, at 10:04 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
 wrote:

>> One thing that could help is if some companies like Cisco, Google, Juniper, etc, with presence in the region start sponsoring some individuals that have been participating or are interested to participate at IETF so they can have more time and financial resources.
> 
> My take on this is that it would be a good start if someone (not limited to the list above, ICANN for instance?) could do more "marketing" for IETF, perhaps identifying universities with courses that cater towards network engineering, making sure they know how Internet standards are developed and how to participate.
> 
> Where is a good "executive summary" to give to upper management, outlining why they should dedicate resources towards participating in the IETF?

I think some of them might tell you they already do. If nothing else, they contribute to ISOC, which in turn sends Fellows. They donate equipment, host meetings, and oh-by-the-way send scads of people. And they contribute to ISOC in other ways too.

BTW, we happen to be working with a university that I shall not name (the MOU isn't signed off yet) located in a southern hemisphere continent on a university course in networking or network engineering or some such.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 23:05:46 -0700

At 20:42 23-05-2013, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>Taking the IETF meeting to Buenos Aires is not a bad idea, but when 
>the meeting is over the root problem will still be there.

Jari Arkko is the Chair of the IETF.  He asked the following 
questions ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79470.html ):

   "Just meeting in some place does not bring too many new participants,
    at least not in a lasting manner.  But combined with some other actions,
    this may be possible.  Are there specific companies or research teams that
    we could reach out to, and who might want to be involved in the IETF?

    Are there local events where where it would be useful to have someone
    from the IETF give a talk?

    Are there specific IETF or IRTF efforts where we could get more people
    from South America involved?

    Should the ISOC fellows program target something different than it has
    so far, or be scaled up? Other ideas?"

What he is saying is that he does not plan to come to Buenos Aires 
for an IETF meeting, have a nice time and then forget about South 
America.  He would like to do more than that.  He asked the questions 
mentioned to learn more about what the IETF can do directly or by 
discussing with other organizations to get more people from South 
America to participate in the IETF.

Juliao Braga was the only person from South America to comment about 
the above.  It is not possible to identify what actions the IETF can 
take if people from South America do not respond to the questions.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:24:13 +0300

Vinayak,

> Maybe several co-located meetings or having people from the IETF speak at universities and regional ISOC chapters around the meeting might help. Also showcasing the good work done by their Latin American peers might help as well.

Good ideas. Thanks.

Jari

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:11:00 -0300

>    from the IETF give a talk?

	There are regional events such as LACNOG (once a year), LACNIC (twice a
year), LACTLD (one large meeting a year and some other workshops during
the year), CLARA (the academic network has different events to different
people -academic, CIO/CTOs, networks tech people), CITEL (goverments),
Caribbean events (CARIBNOG, CANTO, LACNIC Caribbean), etc.

	If needed, I could get places, dates and contact information of the
organizers.

>    from South America involved?

	Initially talks during these events would work. They do not have to be
made by people traveling from other regions, in some cases local or
regional people could help.

	Also I would add that being there and making the effort of traveling it
would be good to organize some talks in local universities.

>    so far, or be scaled up? Other ideas?"

	ISOC fellows have done a great job, now it may be time to empower the
program where we could foster new IETF participants (not only bring them
to the IETF) by encouraging/train/prepare them to participate in the
mailing lists by reviewing and writing drafts.

Regards,
as

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:12:31 -0400

>>>>> "The" == The IAOC <[email-masked]> writes:
    The> The venues are in Buenos Aires.  They meet our requirements for the meeting
    The> space, networking, nearby restaurants and bars, hotel room rates in the mid $200
    The> dollar range, nearby alternate hotels at a broad range of prices, nice area in the
    The> city, safe, direct international flights, and accessible visas.  The IAOC thinks we
    The> could have a successful IETF meeting in Buenos Aires and that attendees would
    The> like the venues.

My question is about whether we would be there during the "peak" season,
and when exactly is that season?

I priced flights for me in July, November and March (2014).
It seems that most flights go through Santiago or Sao Paulo, one went
through Atlanta.  The lowest cost flight for me is similiar to travel to
Europe not in the summer,  but the price rises quite quickly to the $4K
range.  The worse rise seems to be March, but that was also the furthest
in the future.

    The> Things to consider are that it will be a long trip for the majority of IETFers and the
    The> air fares are more expensive (about 10% to 20% higher than average), though
    The> restaurants are less expensive.  This would be a case where most IETFers would
    The> bear more travel pain and expense.  

What are the hotel costs?   
(I fund my own attendance)

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:36:38 -0300

Where are you flying from?

	There are direct flights from Miami, Dallas, Toronto, Washington and
other hubs to Buenos Aires.

Regards,
as

On 5/24/13 11:12 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> The> The venues are in Buenos Aires.  They meet our requirements
> for the meeting The> space, networking, nearby restaurants and
> bars, hotel room rates in the mid $200 The> dollar range, nearby
> alternate hotels at a broad range of prices, nice area in the The>
> city, safe, direct international flights, and accessible visas.
> The IAOC thinks we The> could have a successful IETF meeting in
> Buenos Aires and that attendees would The> like the venues.
> 
> My question is about whether we would be there during the "peak"
> season, and when exactly is that season?
> 
> I priced flights for me in July, November and March (2014). It
> seems that most flights go through Santiago or Sao Paulo, one went 
> through Atlanta.  The lowest cost flight for me is similiar to
> travel to Europe not in the summer,  but the price rises quite
> quickly to the $4K range.  The worse rise seems to be March, but
> that was also the furthest in the future.
> 
> The> Things to consider are that it will be a long trip for the
> majority of IETFers and the The> air fares are more expensive
> (about 10% to 20% higher than average), though The> restaurants are
> less expensive.  This would be a case where most IETFers would The>
> What are the hotel costs? (I fund my own attendance)
>

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:52:23 -0300

Also, there are several events in each country that can be used to
disseminate the actions of IETF. In Brazil, for example, the events
linked to universities and research centers are promoted by the
Brazilian Computer Society (a lot of). Other less formal events but with
participation of people interested in the IETF can be used also, but
should be advised of this because the informal nature makes them fairly
closed.

Immediate action could be, perhaps, the availability of liasons in each
country, evaluating assumptions and indicating alternatives available to
the IAOC or another sector of the IETF. Such liasons should be grouped
regionally leading permanent brainstorm on these issues. Subsequently
divulge the results.

I agree with Vinayak and Melinda concerns.

Julião

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:27:28 -0430

Hello,
  Just a small comment:

On 5/23/13, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> For what it is worth, I wanted to provide my perspective on this. I of
> course believe that it is important that the IETF reaches out to an even

{...}

> Just meeting in some place does not bring too many new participants, at
> least not in a lasting manner. But combined with some other actions, this
> may be possible.

 I couldn't agree more.

> Are there specific companies or research teams that we
> could reach out to, and who might want to be involved in the IETF?

I believe it's a great start. I think most Latam countries have
certain research entities which involve networking.

> Are there
> local events where where it would be useful to have someone from the IETF
> give a talk?

Plenty of events!.. But I also have to say that ISOC and IETFers have
been very supportive. It's common to have IETFers in our events. This
is always great.

Part of the LATAM participant increase you have seen since IETF82 is
some effort from ISOC to promote the IETF in Latam.

> Are there specific IETF or IRTF efforts where we could get more
> people from South America involved? Should the ISOC fellows program target
> something different than it has so far,

  The ISOC fellow program is terrific, what we can do it to support it :)

> or be scaled up? Other ideas?

  One idea that I have always had is to use local ISOC chapter to
follow certain WGs remotely during an IETF event.  I mean, a bunch of
people join in a certain place and get remote participation to the
event. This is a long shot but the idea is to do it regularly and in
many ISOC chapters (sorry if it's been done but AFAIK no)

>
> Jari
>
> P.S. By coincidence, I happened to visit Buenos Aires last year, and found
> it to be a fun city. I felt safe and despite not speaking the local language
> I was able to talk to the friendly locals, order food, access the network,
> acquire a SIM card (albeit with some bureaucratic and technical
> difficulties, but I think I can still dig up the MNC numbers that were
> needed to configure the phone correctly :-), use the airports, rent a car,
> and find a Finnish sauna. I think the city offers all the essential
> ingredients for life :-)
>
>

-- 
=====
^A.......o$

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 07:43:42 -0700

Hi Juliao,
>increase people participation.

That's a nice map.  It highlights the division between the northern 
and southern hemispheres.

>Fellowships will help? Certainly not. Resources are finite.

Agreed.

>answer to the question may seem strange: increasing the number of annual

The answer did sound strange at first.  I think that your answer 
might be appropriate for a different question.

>intensity, ideas, and knowledge.

Agreed.

>success) to capture new people.

It would take a huge effort to do the above.  A person trying to do 
it will make a lot of enemies.

Do you know people in universities or research centers in South 
America who might be interested in contributing their knowledge?  If 
so, could you ask them to comment on ericas?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:29:30 +0000

Speaking as an IETF participator, it is good for IETF diversity. Many people will also enjoy to visit a new places with curious. Actually, Buenos Aires disappointed me when I found it was so similar to European cities.

Speaking as an Asian, last time I flight to Buenos Aires took me more than 30 hours door-to-door. Also, longer flight time means more expensive air tickets. As result, we may experience a meeting with much less Asian participators. I am not sure the increase of participators from other continents can meet the gap.

Best regards,

Sheng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of The
>IAOC
>Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:54 PM
>To: IETF Announcement List
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: IETF Meeting in South America
>

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:28:18 +0000

I used Expedia to price flights for me on March 2014:
 - Buenos Aires: $1401 (21h each way)
 - London (where the meeting actually happens): $413 (7h each way. Direct costs a bit more)
 - Vancouver: $1217 (24 h each way????? $1288 with a more reasonable 16h)
 - Honululu: $1535 (28h each way)
 - Melbourne (to minimize the pain for Mark): $2155 (36h)
 - Minneapolis: $1020 (18h)

So Buenos Aires is not much more painful than some other destinations we've been talking about, and I believe the same will be true for most Europeans. For Americans, is it much more expensive than a trip to Prague?

Yoav

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 12:07:04 -0400

> For Americans, is it much more expensive than a trip to Prague?

I just happen to be looking at flights for berlin at the moment.  BA is
pretty much the same +-$1600 if I'm willing to take an extra hop, closer
to $2K for one hop.

I generally find going to Europe in the summer to be pretty expensive so
am not sure this is the best comparison.  As metioned elsewhere in this
thread, time of year does matter.

I personally am a big fan for going to uninteresting locations in their
off season. Although, perhaps I'm alone in liking Minneapolis in the
winter as an IETF destination...

Lou

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 08:18:30 -0800

> winter as an IETF destination...

No, not alone.

At any rate I think that the core questions about participation
are probably more relevant than a run-down of individual travel
costs.  I've noticed that some of the posters from South
American countries who've expressed enthusiasm for an IETF
meeting in Buenos Aires have not been working group contributors,
and I'm wondering what they feel the barriers to participation
have been, and what can be done that would make it more likely
that they'd, say, review documents.

Melinda

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:07:49 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Berger" <[email-masked]>
To: "Yoav Nir" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: IETF Meeting in South America

> winter as an IETF destination...

No, it is my favourite too (although Atlanta runs it close).  I would
not recommend London in the winter though, as it can be short of snow
ploughs:-(

Tom Petch

> > So Buenos Aires is not much more painful than some other
destinations we've been talking about, and I believe the same will be
true for most Europeans. For Americans, is it much more expensive than a
trip to Prague?
> >>    The> The venues are in Buenos Aires.  They meet our requirements
for the meeting
> >> My question is about whether we would be there during the "peak"
season,
> >> through Atlanta.  The lowest cost flight for me is similiar to
travel to
> >>    The> Things to consider are that it will be a long trip for the
majority of IETFers and the

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:31:35 +0000

> winter as an IETF destination...

You are not.   Although Vancouver seems to have taken over for Minneapolis.

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 14:34:39 -0300

I have been lurking IETF for many years, but it was only after I went
to my first meeting that I really understood how the IETF worked and how
to really participate.

	After that meeting I started to send comments, read drafts, writing
some initial stuff and arguing. Before that meeting I didn't know how to
do it, and how good or bad my comments would be received. I think it
might be cultural, but before my first meeting I felt a bit intimidated
by the ietf and being flamed by a bad comment.

	I didn't stop feeling intimidated after the first meeting, it took me a
bit more but definitely it helped me to understand the ietf, its
community and how to participate.

	I wouldn't be surprised if it were many people just like I was, lurking
the email lists but have never sent anything for the same reasons that I
did.

Regards,
as

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:39:15 -0800

> You are not.   Although Vancouver seems to have taken over for Minneapolis.

Feh.  There is no winter in Vancouver.  On the other hand there are
salmon and steelhead.

Melinda

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:43:16 -0700

While it's unlikely that I would be able to attend, I think it's an 
excellent idea for reasons already better stated by others, and BA is a 
very nice city.

The only suggestion I might add that I haven't seen mentioned yet (and 
pardon me if I missed it) would be to perhaps schedule the meeting to 
piggy back on one of the excellent regional meetings that is already 
well established. Arturo gave a good list, IME LACNIC and LACTLD would 
be the best/most obvious candidates. By running the IETF meeting either 
the week before, or the week after one of those meetings we would be 
able to get quite a bit of cross-pollination, especially with the 
availability of day passes.

hth,

Doug

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:03:16 -0700

On 5/24/13 10:43 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> excellent idea for reasons already better stated by others, and BA is 
> a very nice city.
>
> be the best/most obvious candidates. By running the IETF meeting 
> either the week before, or the week after one of those meetings we 
> would be able to get quite a bit of cross-pollination, especially with 
> the availability of day passes.
The dates for our meetings are already fixed out to november 2022.

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 14:05:53 -0400

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM, joel jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> pardon me if I missed it) would be to perhaps schedule the meeting to piggy
>> back on one of the excellent regional meetings that is already well
>> established. Arturo gave a good list, IME LACNIC and LACTLD would be the
>> best/most obvious candidates. By running the IETF meeting either the week
>> before, or the week after one of those meetings we would be able to get
>> quite a bit of cross-pollination, especially with the availability of day
>> passes.
>>

Given that I don't think there are stone tablets involved, presumably they
could still be moved if there were a good reason.  It's not like people
have already booked plane tickets to BA.

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:08:42 -0300

Depending on how the IETF in BA is scheduled, it may be possible or not
to make it before or after of a regional meeting such as LACNIC, LACTLD
or LACNOG.

	I guess the best bet is for the third meeting of the year (IETF is
around the beginning of November, LACNOG/LACNIC are around the end or
middle October).

as

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:21:03 -0500

At 05:25 PM 5/23/2013, Jari Arkko wrote:

>For what it is worth, I wanted to provide my perspective on this. I 
>of course believe that it is important that the IETF reaches out to 
>an even more international participation than it already has. This 
>is first of all because we really need the views from different 
>types of organisations and different parts of the world. For 
>instance, I recently had an opportunity to talk to a number of 
>people about peering in different regions. It really opened my eyes 
>about how the Internet experience can differ from what I've been 
>used to so far. We also need to understand how regionally changing 
>requirements for, e.g., emergency communications

I hate to call you out on this point Jari, but... did you know that 
you have a audio/video realtime interactive communications WG 
churning out proposals and solutions that is *actively* ignoring 
"emergency communications" in its entirety? No? Look at RTCweb, which 
will become a dominant form of interactive communications between 
humans in the near future. You have an equally active WG in the same 
area that is addressing emergency communications (ECRIT) that is 
further along/mature in its documents (i.e., they've already produced 
the bulk of their RFCs, specifically RFC 6443 and 6881).

Given that young people already think contacting a local emergency 
call center (PSAP) can or should be achievable through SMS, IM, 
twitter and Facebook... just how long does anyone think it will be 
before calling 911/112/999 will be requested or mandated through WEBrtc/RTCweb?

Waiting will only make it more painful to retrofit it into the future 
RFCs produced by RTCweb.

humbly

James

>or whitespace management affect our work. Finally, our international 
>coverage is not just important for our work but also for how we are 
>perceived. For all of these reasons, reaching out to different parts 
>of the world is important, and one aspect of that is rotating 
>through meeting locations around the world.
>
>This is really important, and I hope that we get good feedback on 
>what kinds of things would be useful to do in order to achieve this. 
>That is, we're not just asking a binary question if the meeting is 
>or is not ok.
>
>Just meeting in some place does not bring too many new participants, 
>at least not in a lasting manner. But combined with some other 
>actions, this may be possible. Are there specific companies or 
>research teams that we could reach out to, and who might want to be 
>involved in the IETF? Are there local events where where it would be 
>useful to have someone from the IETF give a talk? Are there specific 
>IETF or IRTF efforts where we could get more people from South 
>America involved? Should the ISOC fellows program target something 
>different than it has so far, or be scaled up? Other ideas?
>
>Jari
>
>P.S. By coincidence, I happened to visit Buenos Aires last year, and 
>found it to be a fun city. I felt safe and despite not speaking the 
>local language I was able to talk to the friendly locals, order 
>food, access the network, acquire a SIM card (albeit with some 
>bureaucratic and technical difficulties, but I think I can still dig 
>up the MNC numbers that were needed to configure the phone correctly 
>:-), use the airports, rent a car, and find a Finnish sauna. I think 
>the city offers all the essential ingredients for life :-)

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:21:35 -0700

On 5/24/13 11:05 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM, joel jaeggli <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>         While it's unlikely that I would be able to attend, I think
>         it's an excellent idea for reasons already better stated by
>         others, and BA is a very nice city.
>
>         The only suggestion I might add that I haven't seen mentioned
>         yet (and pardon me if I missed it) would be to perhaps
>         schedule the meeting to piggy back on one of the excellent
>         regional meetings that is already well established. Arturo
>         gave a good list, IME LACNIC and LACTLD would be the best/most
>         obvious candidates. By running the IETF meeting either the
>         week before, or the week after one of those meetings we would
>         be able to get quite a bit of cross-pollination, especially
>         with the availability of day passes.
>
> Given that I don't think there are stone tablets involved, presumably 
> they could still be moved if there were a good reason.
The consistent feedback regarding non-conflict as long as I been 
involved in this tends to indicate otherwise. 18-months to 2 years seems 
much more reasonable to me personally.

While there are various sorts of force majeure events that could no 
doubt alter the dates I don't see it as likely that they are otherwise 
flexible. ieee plenary sessions are scehduled out to july 2018 for example.

http://www.ietf.org/meeting/clash-list.html

is long
> It's not like people have already booked plane tickets to BA.
>
>         hth,
>
>         Doug
>
>
>

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:24:40 -0700

> much more reasonable to me personally.

Joel,

You're making several fundamental mistakes in your thinking. Rather than 
focusing on all the reasons you think it cannot happen, why not take the 
suggestion for what it was (it would be nice if we could do ...), and 
let the folks who actually do the scheduling decide if the idea is worth 
pursuing, and if so if it is possible.

Doug

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:29:52 -0700

On 5/24/13 11:24 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> You're making several fundamental mistakes in your thinking. Rather 
> than focusing on all the reasons you think it cannot happen, why not 
> take the suggestion for what it was (it would be nice if we could do ...),
probably because I've been involved in the planning loop since 44.
> and let the folks who actually do the scheduling decide if the idea is 
> worth pursuing, and if so if it is possible.
> Doug
>

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:37:49 -0700

> probably because I've been involved in the planning loop since 44.

... and you're also involved in planning for LACNIC, LACTLD, LACNOG, and 
every other regional organization in Latin America that might be 
interested in running their meeting before or after ours?

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 12:30:23 -0700

On 5/24/13 11:37 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> ... and you're also involved in planning for LACNIC, LACTLD, LACNOG, 
> and every other regional organization in Latin America that might be 
The question was whether the IETF dates are fungible. They aren't. I 
would like them to be rather more fungible and I'm apparently in the 
minority. There is a reason why the colocated ieee meeting with the IETF 
occured something like 6 years after it was proposed.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:06:57 -0700 (PDT)

Joel,

This isn't 100% true. While our dates are not "fungible," we could 
*consider* a date move, say +/- a week *if* this would give us 
availability in a certain location. This would of course be the 
*exception* and not the rule (which you have correct), but *if* we 
found that, say, moving IETF 127 one week would make everything work 
perfectly, then, yes, we *could* do it. Of course, this would have to 
be done FAR in advance and with ample community input, just like we 
are doing for the South America survey.

(Recall some recent discussion about moving a meeting to avoid some 
holiday [Easter as I recall].)

But you are generally right: our dates are fixed for mostly all good
reasons, it's just that sometimes we find that this can also be to
our detriment. If we are looking ahead several years, I can well 
imagine some negotiation, say with an RIR meeting, etc, etc.

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
Skype: organdemo

On Fri, 24 May 2013, joel jaeggli wrote:

> > every other regional organization in Latin America that might be interested
> > in running their meeting before or after ours?
> >
> The question was whether the IETF dates are fungible. They aren't. I would
> like them to be rather more fungible and I'm apparently in the minority. There
> is a reason why the colocated ieee meeting with the IETF occured something
> like 6 years after it was proposed.
> 
>

---

From: "Pat Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 22:26:45 +0000

Carnival is usually around March (I think it moves around being linked to Easter like Mardi Gras). I priced flights for November and July from Northern California and it looks like there would be option at less than my travel to Berlin (and about 2 to 3 times travel to East Coast North America). Travel time is a longer than for Europe at about 24 hours, but not outrageously longer. I didn't try to price March because it is hard to get a feel for prices so far in advance - the airline isn't yet adjusting them for capacity.

Pat

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 04:53:05 +0530

> the email lists but have never sent anything for the same reasons that I

+1

Couple more obesrevations:

1. I was lurking on the mailing list for sometime before I could get enough
context to even comment. Also much of the content in IETF is trapped in
people's heads. Even after reading the drafts on tools/datatracker AND
following the mailing lists, sometimes it may not be clear why the design
decisions have been made. The archived mailing list format (that can
sometimes help) is not pretty to read or follow. There is not much that can
be dome about it. It is just the nature of email communication. This is
especially true if the area is adjunct (to your domain knowledge) or
somewhat new to you.

2. The directness of communication can be jarring for people from some
cultures where deference and politeness are more important that being
right. The fact that several Asians are contributing to IETF means that
this barrier can be overcome. But it is harder when you do not know anyone
whom you can connect to. Maybe some handholding / mentoring (even remotely)
might help.

There are unfortunately no easy answers for both 1 & 2.

-- Vinayak

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 May 2013 23:38:18 -0000

>Feh.  There is no winter in Vancouver.  On the other hand there are

I distinctly remember a meeting in Vancouver where certain attendees
were complaining about the winter weather, with temperatures plunging
below zero* and snow drifting 1 to 2*.  

The specific complaint was that this made it uncomfortable to wear
sandals.

R's,
John

* - we're engineers, that would be celsius and centimetres

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 May 2013 23:47:31 -0000

>and when exactly is that season?

I gather you're in Ottawa.  Here's Air Canada's calendar rules for
their lowest fare to EZE:

 ORIGINATING CANADA -
     PERMITTED 01JAN THROUGH 08JUL OR 06AUG THROUGH 16SEP
     OR 01OCT THROUGH 16DEC OR 24DEC THROUGH 31DEC ON THE
     FIRST INTERNATIONAL SECTOR. SEASON IS BASED ON DATE
     OF ORIGIN.

   ORIGINATING ARGENTINA -
     PERMITTED 13JAN THROUGH 30JUN OR 21JUL THROUGH 02SEP
     OR 17SEP THROUGH 01JAN ON THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL
     SECTOR. SEASON IS BASED ON DATE OF ORIGIN.

I checked some US cities, turned out the cheapest fares were also
AC (rather an odd routing if you're starting at LAX but think of
all those miles) and the dates are:

  ORIGINATING UNITED STATES -
     PERMITTED 01FEB THROUGH 13JUL OR 04SEP THROUGH 30NOV
     ON THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL SECTOR. SEASON IS BASED
     ON DATE OF ORIGIN.

   ORIGINATING ARGENTINA -
     PERMITTED 17SEP THROUGH 31DEC OR 27JAN THROUGH 22FEB
     OR 01APR THROUGH 20JUN ON THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL
     SECTOR. SEASON IS BASED ON DATE OF ORIGIN.

I don't know what happens in B.A. in July and August in the middle of
the winter.  The cheapest fares from Paris have no calendar limits.
The cheapest fares from Frankfurt are only good Aug-Oct.  Go figure.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 10:10:07 +0300

James:

> did you know that you have a audio/video realtime interactive communications WG churning out proposals and solutions that is *actively* ignoring "emergency communications" in its entirety? No? Look at RTCweb, which will become a dominant form of interactive communications between humans in the near future. You have an equally active WG in the same area that is addressing emergency communications (ECRIT) that is further along/mature in its documents (i.e., they've already produced the bulk of their RFCs, specifically RFC 6443 and 6881).
> 
> Given that young people already think contacting a local emergency call center (PSAP) can or should be achievable through SMS, IM, twitter and Facebook... just how long does anyone think it will be before calling 911/112/999 will be requested or mandated through WEBrtc/RTCweb?
> 
> Waiting will only make it more painful to retrofit it into the future RFCs produced by RTCweb.

I knew that WebRTC is happening fast, including implementations coming out before standards. I don't think everyone have yet realised the full impact this technology will have.

I didn't know about the details of the emergency communications situation. But it is always difficult to balance getting something out early vs. complete. I know how much pressure there is on the working groups to keep up with things actually happening in the browsers and organisations setting up to use this technology. Do you think the retrofit will be problematic, and do you have a specific suggestion about what should be included today?

Jari

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 10:18:51 -0400

--On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:10 +0300 Jari Arkko
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I didn't know about the details of the emergency
> communications situation. But it is always difficult to
> balance getting something out early vs. complete. I know how
> much pressure there is on the working groups to keep up with
> things actually happening in the browsers and organisations
> setting up to use this technology. Do you think the retrofit
> will be problematic, and do you have a specific suggestion
> about what should be included today?

Jari,

James will probably have a different answer and perspective, but
I suggest that retrofits of security-sensitive features are so
often problematic to make "always" not much of an exaggeration.  

I don't think there is any general solution to the "early vs.
complete" tradeoff [1], nor, as long as we keep trying to deal
with things as collections of disconnected pieces rather than
systems, to the issues created by WGs with significant overlaps
in either scope or technology.  What I think we can do is to be
particularly vigilant to be sure that the two WGs are tracking
and frequently reviewing each other's work.   At least RTCWEB
and ECRIT are in the same area, which should make that
coordination easier than it might be otherwise.

   john

[1] Watch for a note about this that I've been trying to
organize for about two weeks and hope to finish and post this
weekend.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 18:42:39 +0200

The IAOC has put forward two reasons for having an IETF meeting in South 
America:

> Encouraging growing participation will help strengthen the Internet,
> further encourage participation from those areas that will see the
> most growth in the coming years, and will help advance the IETF in
> political and international circles which is becoming more of an
> imperative.

That is:

1. Promoting regional participation from Latin America

    There certainly are under-represented constituencies that we should 
find ways to bring to the IETF in greater numbers.  Residents of Latin 
America certainly qualify.

    However a number of comments on the ietf list have observed that our 
conducting a single meeting in South America is unlikely to effect 
greater Latin participation in the IETF.  I agree, it won't, and frankly 
I think it shouldn't, because it's a expensive and possibly risky Grand 
Gesture rather than a substantive change.

    If we want great regional participation, let's look for ways to 
achieve that -- for /all/ under-represented constituencies.  I suspect 
that what's needed will be similar for all of them.

2. Counteracting some type of IETF 'deficiency' in political and 
international circles.

    As stated, that's a pretty vague concern, although yes, we sometimes 
hear criticisms around the IETF's regional choices. However the nature 
of exchanges like these are -- as correctly characterized by the IAOC -- 
political, and they are rarely assuaged by letting the critics dictate 
organizational decision-making, such as where to send 1200 participants 
for a mission-critical meeting.

    Put simply: we shouldn't let political critics set the agenda for 
IETF strategic planning.  They'll just find something else to hassle us 
about, since their political goal is criticizing the IETF, not improving 
it.  Again as others have noted, one meeting in the region won't be 
enough, and then there are the other regions we don't go to, and there 
will be something else, and something more after that.

    But wait. There's a bigger issue being missed: The basis of the 
criticism is fundamentally specious!  The /reality/ is that the IETF is 
dramatically /more/ open in its participation and its documents than 
nearly any other international standards group, most of whom have 
nation- or vendor-based membership fees and restrictions, with little or 
no participation via email or remote attendance.

    Again, don't let political exercises determine the IETF's public 
message. The solid reality of extreme IETF global inclusiveness is real 
and basic. Those who want to hear that message will.  Those who don't 
won't be quieted by a stray meeting in the southern half of South America.

     Of course we need to do more and better at being inclusive.  The 
nascent diversity effort speaks to the IETF's own concern about that.

As for some other points in the IAOC message...

>    http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Regional-Attendance-00.pdf.

 From the cited table, we see that Latin American meeting attendance 
grew from <1% to 2%, over a bit more than one year.  However note that 
it showed a marked /decrease/ in the preceding year.

As statistical analyses goes, making a business claim of increased 
attendance, based on percentages that small and with a pattern that 
contradictory, is extremely risky.

It also means 98% of attendees at the venue will /not/ be from the 
region, rather than the usual 1/3 - 2/3 for our usual meeting venues. 
That is, this meeting will be disproportionately out of the way for 
attendees.

>  IETF standards are also made more robust when all perspectives
> are represented during their development.

The IETF's primary working venue is mailing lists.  Are participants 
from that region having singular difficulties participating in mailing 
lists?

There were a few notes about this on the ietf list.

I'd summarize it as suggesting that we need more effort at making 
mailing list participation easier for non-native English speakers, for 
those new to IETF culture, and for those having an upbringing that is a 
poor match against the IETF's gruff, aggressive debating style.  But, of 
course, these are general issues about the IETF that also have come up 
before.  And these are what we need to address.

> bear more travel pain and expense.

The cost appears to be significantly worse than that.  Presumably the 
referenced average is spread across current planned averages of 
within-region and 'distant' region meetings, with distant regions 
typically being more expensive and of course incurring longer travel 
times.

This one to South America will be distant for 98% of attendees. So more 
attendees than usual will be spending 'distant' travel money and time.

 From the table below, a rough guess is that the incremental per-person 
cost of this meeting's air travel is arguably around, US$700(!) 
Multiply that by 1175 attendees -- assuming an average total of 1200. 
That's an incremental community cost of roughly one million dollars.

And travel times to Buenos Aires are much longer than all but the most 
distant venues, probably adding 1/2 - 1 day each way.  So attendees are 
likely to be away from work and family for 1-2 days longer.

And for those who answer the questionnaire, saying that they are likely 
or very likely to go to a meeting in Buenos Aires, one issue to consider 
carefully is the likelihood of management approval for these extra 
costs, or at least the overall effect on your annual travel budget.

Adelaide was fun, but it was not justified in terms of either of the 
rationales put forward in the IAOC note.  It also was a long time ago -- 
the Internet has changed, the world's economies have changed, and 
companies allocation of funds have changed.

I like visiting South America.  But IETF meetings do not have tourism as 
a goal.  So yes, I'm sure those who go will "enjoy" the city; but again, 
that's not stated purpose of choosing venues.

Again, yes we want greater IETF participation of all regions around the 
globe, but this meeting venue won't change things.

If we are serious about wanting more participation from 
under-represented regions, then let's attack that issue seriously and 
substantively, rather than with an expensive marketing show.

For example, $1M/year could fund quite a lot of regional IETF outreach 
-- perhaps as an extension to the existing, excellent ISOC global effort 
-- and perhaps even better remote participation capabilities...

d/

  Orbitz coach prices for late October 2013, US$
  ==============================================

Origin        BUE   Frankfurt   Tokyo    Atlanta
---------    ----   ---------   -----    -------
SFO          1400     1200       1100       350
Amsterdam    1600      150        800      1100
Taipei       2100      900        400      1500

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 14:56:48 -0300

This is the main question with one pragmatic solution proposal in brief,
and well justified!

Juliao

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 15:57:36 -0400

Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups, going
back about a year:
<http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/84/slides/slides-84-ecrit-0.pdf>
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-aboba-rtcweb-ecrit-00.txt>

So my read of the situation is much less dire than James's.  As I
understand it, the upshot of the initial coordination discussions is that
there's not a single, clear "RTCWEB+ECRIT" story.  Instead, there are a few
ways you can put them together.  In the short run, without upgrading PSAPs,
RTCWEB VoIP services can bridge RTCWEB signaling to ECRIT-compliant SIP,
either at the server, or at the client using something like
SIP-over-WebSockets.  In the long run, PSAPs can just advertise an RTCWEB
service like they would advertise a SIP service today (in LoST).  Neither
of these is incompatible with RTCWEB or ECRIT as they're being specified
today.

I expect there are probably some ECRIT considerations that aren't naturally
supported in RTCWEB.  Things like real-time text come to mind.  However, it
doesn't seem to me that there's gross incompatibility.

--Richard

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 13:08:43 -0700

At 09:42 26-05-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>I like visiting South America.  But IETF meetings do not have 
>tourism as a goal.  So yes, I'm sure those who go will "enjoy" the 
>city; but again, that's not stated purpose of choosing venues.

Over a year ago "the IAOC [was] pleased to announce the Return of the 
Nerds to Paradise!"

>under-represented regions, then let's attack that issue seriously 
>and substantively, rather than with an expensive marketing show.

Yes.

The meaning of "the elephant in the room" is "an important and 
obvious topic, which everyone present is aware of, but which isn't 
discussed, as such discussion is considered to be 
uncomfortable".  The elephant in the room is that there hasn't been 
any discussion about what has been done to get more participation 
from under-represented regions but nobody has mentioned that.

  (a) Was the IESG working on how to get more participation from
      under-represented regions?

  (b) Was the IAB working on how to get more participation from
      under-represented regions?

I am asking the above questions as it is not clear who in the IETF 
was doing that.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 12:43:43 -0800

On 5/26/13 12:08 PM, SM wrote:
> The elephant in the
> room is that there hasn't been any discussion about what has been done
> to get more participation from under-represented regions but nobody has
> mentioned that.

One of the things that's really popped out in the discussion
on the ericas list is that none of the people posting have
been from vendors/manufacturers, which right now is by far
the largest sector participating in the IETF.  The posters
have either been academics or from operators.  We can't even
get much participation from operators in North America and
Europe.  The industry sector bias in IETF participation is
possibly compounding the regional bias.

Melinda

---

From: "Edwin A. Opare" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 20:59:19 +0000

>The elephant in the  room is that there hasn't been any discussion about
what has been done
> to get more participation from under-represented regions but nobody has

I believe there's the need for a lot more awareness creation about the IETF
in the under-represented regions. That is a sure way to get more
participation from there. In Ghana where I come from for instance not many
people know about the IETF, let alone the wonderful work they are doing to
ensure the continuous development and evolution of the Internet.

The awareness creation should start at the grassroots level : "The
Universities"!. Train the soon-to-graduate Computer Scientist/Engineer on
the values and essence of the IETF and it'll forever be with them even
after graduation.

To elicit participation from the under-represented regions, the
universities are a sure starting point, then a lot more industry-focused
awareness creation by the ISOC local Chapters.

--
Regards,

Edwin

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 16:01:30 -0700

Hi Edwin,
At 13:59 26-05-2013, Edwin A. Opare wrote:
>Universities"!. Train the soon-to-graduate Computer 
>Scientist/Engineer on the values and essence of the IETF and it'll 
>forever be with them even after graduation.
>
>universities are a sure starting point, then a lot more 
>industry-focused awareness creation by the ISOC local Chapters.

AfNOG has trained hundreds of people in Africa.  Those people do not 
participate on the mailing list.  There are some people from Africa 
who have attended IETF meetings.  They don't participate in the 
IETF.  Why is it that there are some participants from South America 
whereas there aren't any participants from Africa?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 01:38:08 +0200

I support to add the new region, hoping in future Africa gets its
chance. IMO, I thought about it from another point of view. After a
long time of having IETF meetings mostly in one region (as history of
North America region gaining most meetings), the result of that was
that IETF participants are majority from North America, so I think it
MAY be a result of meetings held in one region (some will argue it is
because experts individual-participants/company-participants come from
North America, while giving no value of IETF marketing),  However,
IETF claims it is for the WORLD as Internet is, not for only one
region's Internet. So giving now chance for other regions (or diverse
Internet communities) to gain meetings will help in the FUTURE more
participants from other regions as it happend to North America.

 For IETF it already gained many from North america, and they don't
increase so it SHOULD market elsewhere for future plans. My answers to
your questions below,

AB

>       under-represented regions?

I think they SHOULD have, and all of us should do the same, because
IETF will expand and become stronger by increasing participants from
ALL Internet community regions. The answers also based on IETF vesion.
>       under-represented regions?

I think they SHOULD have, and all of us should do the same, because
IETF will expand and become stronger by increasing participants from
ALL Internet community regions. The answers also based on IETF vesion.

> I am asking the above questions as it is not clear who in the IETF

I am working on it my self, so I hope others think the same, I have
asked many students about the IETF, they don't know about it a thing,
so should n't we ask question why the community of Internet users in
South America not participating? One answer can be that the reason is
that IETF participants majority from North America and they don't want
to spend money on long journies that include many competing regions
(e.g. few regions or few long distance per year maybe fine).

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 01:51:11 +0200

Hi SM,

There are some from Africa trying to find the way in, but they may not
mention it, however, training is not important much to make people
participate but the type of training and its period inside
organisation not outside. For example, I notice that there was one
African participant (not me), trying to participate in writing one
draft for the community, so was he/she encouraged by the WGs,
Directors, or the Chairs, was the draft guided? was that participant
asked to market that draft in his/her community region to make
support. The IETF majority-culture may not be much welcoming from
others point of view, I try to market IETF but need help of the
responds others may get from discouragings.

AB

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 21:02:30 -0300

SM, FYI:

Inscriptions at IETF 86 [1]:

ARIN	 RIPE	  APNIC	   AFRINIC	LACNIC
 671	  258	   237	      31	   26
  54.87%   21.10%   19.38%     2.53%	    2.13%

Inscriptions since IETF 72 to IETF 85. For Year, RIR and Country:
http://rfc.pegasus.com.br/ietf.php

I think the local of the meeting no change the numbers. For me the
apparent common sense prevails in the list and Dave Crocker pointed
(...let's attack that...): the issue is to establish a systematic and
effective process in under-represented regions (countries, I think).

Regards,

Julião
1. http://rfc.pegasus.com.br/ietf86.php (including, year, RIR and Country)

Em 26/05/2013 20:01, SM escreveu:
> participate on the mailing list.  There are some people from Africa who
> have attended IETF meetings.  They don't participate in the IETF.  Why
> is it that there are some participants from South America whereas there
> aren't any participants from Africa?

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 03:11:56 +0200

I support the ietf-meeting in new regions, and reply as below,

>> political and international circles which is becoming more of an

Yes I agree, but think that managment SHOULD work with ALL
participants (usually majority from North America) to make this
successful. We will not do that only if we work together, otherwise
not possible if only management work alone.

> greater Latin participation in the IETF.

If you analyse results for short term, you are right, but these things
are long term plans for future participants. We need to give South
America more time to see the result,

> I agree, it won't, and frankly

Not sure what is expensive, do you mean expensive for IETF or for the
participants. If it is for regular participants, then they may become
remote for some time, for the best of IETF, which they will gain as
will.
> that what's needed will be similar for all of them.

So you ask to other way other than reducing the majority of meetings
in North America. Do you mean that if we go for the way you are
disagreeing it will result to reduce number of majority participants?
I don't think so, as long as ALL have the IETF vesion.
> for a mission-critical meeting.

No one sending any participants, it is a volunteering meetings, and
can be remotely attended. New communities are still need more face to
face meetings than experts of IETF.
> will be something else, and something more after that.

Yes, that is the beauty of IETF, it always changes for the best, we
need to get use to change, many organisations face their staff
resistance of change. Usually memebrs of organisation like things to
go the way it was before.
> no participation via email or remote attendance.

We will get more remote participants when the meetings are expensive
for majority of participants. However, the number of attendance will
increase, because we got remote attendance and face to face new
attendance with lower costs per individuals :)
> That is, this meeting will be disproportionately out of the way for

You assume that they all will attend not remotely. The usual meeting
venues has majority from same region, do you think that is a good
achievment, IMHO, it is better to have 50% attendance not from the
region and 50% remotely, than having 90% from same region. The 90%
attendance from same region sound like politics in my understandning,
I don't understand what you mean by *political excersies determining
IETF*.
> from that region having singular difficulties participating in mailing

That is good that ALL should get use to participate remotely,
including the 98% of IETF participants. For new regions they need to
start face to face, then after that they will be well trained to have
no difficultues on mailing lists. Please note that I am a remote
participant and attending meetings remotely, but still there are
difficulties facing me because of other issues (may be ietf politics)
you may never experienced.
> before.  And these are what we need to address.

I may understood that you define IETF culture as it is the North
America Culture, I disagree. The IETF culture is the world community
culture that are using the Internet standards. I know that 98%
participants from same region make a region-culture but that is not
the 98% IETF culture.
>> bear more travel pain and expense.

I think that is reasonable, and that will help to increase remote
participants, and increase different industries to participate.
> typically being more expensive and of course incurring longer travel

that will help to increase attendance of remote participants, and
increase different industries to participate.

> attendees than usual will be spending 'distant' travel money and time.

We are not sure about that assumption, but I will say we need to give
chance to other regions to increase participation other wise this 98%
will be 100% in future, and we will never need to have other regions.
The result may be that communities decide to separate-work the IETF
into different regions that work separately, do we want that to
happen? Do you want each region to have its own IETF meetings that
have 100% of attendance (with 1% remote attendance) from same region
with lowest costs.
> That's an incremental community cost of roughly one million dollars.

Not sure why you make it added to a million, they spend separately, so
we should not add them as if they go to one company. I don't think the
IETF is spending that one million. You will only add costs if ALL
participants from same region work together to pay one company for the
total costs, therefore, there is no dought that the costs per
individual will reduce and that company will still make money.
> costs, or at least the overall effect on your annual travel budget.

The costs can be reduced if we work together not separately. However,
there is no excuse as long there is possibility of remote attendance.
As you mentioned we need to get use to mailing list remotely.
> companies allocation of funds have changed.

Yes, all changed so we also need to change, that may be the reason why
IETF should go to other regions that had not much economic impacts.

> that's not stated purpose of choosing venues.

Yes tourist not a goal but IMO the goal is to meet with Internet
community and encourage its new technologies growth/use. IMO we need
to choose venues to meet with new regional
companies/vendors/users/individuals.
> globe, but this meeting venue won't change things.

Yes, It will not change only if we don't care or we don't work with
management. All 100% of participants should market the IETF standards
to the world and any/every where.
> substantively, rather than with an expensive marketing show.

It is not expensive marketing show for the IETF, it can be expensive
per participant, but still that is volunteering not expense, still
there is a choice to volunteer to attend remotely. However, even a
meeting with minimum of 500 present-attendance is a great/enough IETF
marketing per region which will give future results.
> -- and perhaps even better remote participation capabilities...

Dont forget globalisation, not a region is gaining the one million it
is companies, I suggested above a way to reduce the total amount of
1M/year (there are many ways) and dont agree to add them as the
payments are separate to separate companies,

AB

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 05:37:12 +0200

Just to make the topic a little more interesting...

    Google Unable To Keep Paying App Developers In Argentina

http://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/05/25/132232/google-unable-to-keep-paying-app-developers-in-argentina

    "Google has sent letters to app developers registered in Argentina 
saying they won't be able to accept payments on developers' behalf after 
June 27th. 'The change applies to both paid apps and apps that use 
in-app purchases. The move appears to be related to new, restrictive 
regulations the Argentine government has imposed on currency exchanges.' 
According to the Telegraph, 'The new regulations required anyone wanting 
to change Argentine pesos into another currency to submit an online 
request for permission to AFIP, the Argentine equivalent of HM Revenue & 
Customs. ..."

d/

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 May 2013 04:15:05 -0000

> The move appears to be related to new, restrictive 

This isn't likely to change soon.

Back in 2001 the Argentine government defaulted on about $100 billion
of debt.  Since then they got 93% of the bondholders to agree to
restructure and accept partial payment, and had been making payments
to those and nothing to the other 7%.  But an outfit called Elliot
Management bought some of that 7%, took Argentina to court in New
York, where the bonds were issued. and earlier this year the New York
court decided that if Argentina pays anyone, they have to pay
everyone, including the 7% that still demand payment in full.
Argentina has tried a variety of gimmicks to try to pay the
restructured bonds and not the holdouts, mostly with the effect of
annoying the judge.  Since the payments are made through Bank of New
York, whose management has no interest in going to jail, nobody's
currently getting paid, leading to great gnashing of teeth but no
progress.

For this most part, this wouldn't affect foreigners going to Argentina
since we'd be changing hard currency into pesos, which the government
encourages, since their supply of hard currency is very limited.  (If
they had more, they could pay off the holdouts, but they don't.)
Except that the holdouts have done a lot of gimmicky things to try and
get their money, notably slapping a lien on the Argentine navy's
sailing training ship Libertad while it was in port in Ghana.  If they
slap a lien on an Argentine airplane, for example, things could be
somewhat chaotic.

These kinds of currency controls are quite common in the aftermath of
a currency crisis, e.g., in Iceland and Cyprus, but Argentina has had
a rolling crisis for decades.

R's,
John

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 02:31:23 -0300

According to the news published for a long time in Brazilian newspapers
and magazines, Buenos Aires (a wonderful place!) would not be
recommended. But who should tell us about the true cenary would be our
Argentine friends.

Juliao

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 22:45:45 -0700

On 5/26/13 4:01 PM, SM wrote:
> participate on the mailing list.
They are network operators, system adminstrators, students and NGO 
participants bootstraping parts of the experience by participating in 
activities with their regional peers. A week-long series of workshops 
held once a year has some worthwhile goals and notable sucesses I don't 
think of it a fertile training ground for new IETF participants.
> There are some people from Africa who have attended IETF meetings.  
> They don't participate in the IETF.  Why is it that there are some 
> participants from South America whereas there aren't any participants 
> from Africa?
People come to the IETF with work because they have a problem which the 
work product of their contribution through the IETF activity addresses.  
That's fairly expensive, time consuming, and has uncertain results.

There are past and present contributors from various parts of the 
continent, I've had the privilege of working with some of them.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 22:51:12 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>ALL Internet community regions. The answers also based on IETF vesion.

The question was about what was done in the past.  It is not about 
what the IESG or IAB is doing or could do in future.

>draft for the community, so was he/she encouraged by the WGs,

Does that participant reside in Africa?  Will that participant 
implement the draft by writing code?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 23:07:30 -0700

Hi Joel,
At 22:45 26-05-2013, joel jaeggli wrote:
>notable sucesses I don't think of it a fertile training ground for 
>new IETF participants.

I agree that it is not fertile ground for new IETF participants.

>People come to the IETF with work because they have a problem which 
>the work product of their contribution through the IETF activity addresses.

Yes.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 01:16:49 -0500

The financial and political current situation is more complex than just the manipulation and restrictions on currency exchange and payment of obligations.

I feel that is totally OT but for example we have supporters of the current government like this one, claiming to be a writer, that if you are able to read in Spanish or helped by a translator to read his article, you will learn that he is propagating a message that says "Internet is the secret weapon of the imperialism." 

http://sumateacristina.net/m/blogpost?id=6438092%3ABlogPost%3A524963

His view is shared by many, so in the event IETF gets to meet in Buenos Aires, if the meeting becomes public, don't be surprised to see some coordinated political manifestation.

Funny thing, does he realize what is he using to propagate his message ?

I'd really love to see folks from my country become more involved with IETF, the opportunity for more outreach and engagement, and also visit my country, but as Dave said IETF is not in the tourism business and there could be more effective ways to develop some program with long term effects to drive more regional participation.

As I said before, just a meeting won't do.

Regards,

-Jorge

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 08:19:35 +0100

> This isn't likely to change soon.

Going into the country isn't the problem, more importantly it seems that if you don't spend all your pesos in Argentina, you can't change them back to your own currency:

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Travel-g294266-s601/Argentina:Banks.And.Money.html
(see last paragraph)

I just keep a pool of Euros and dollars (US and Canadian) which I never change back to my own currency, as I visit these countries a fair bit, but it is a concern to pick a venue where any cash I get in advance is lost if unspent.

Is this above advice from Tripadvisor correct?

Tim

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:08:32 +0300

I'm not quite sure the currency exchange issues are key for this discussion. FWIW, I think you can still budget in Euros for the Berlin meeting, but I'm only 97% sure :-)

Anyway, I wanted to highlight that, as has been pointed out by many, just meeting at some place makes little sense. But the question on the table is not just that. We're asking both about the meeting and about what other forms of getting additional participation from the region would be useful. My personal opinion is that we need to do multiple things to make an impact. And again IMO, meetings should be a part of that set. But definitely not alone. I know many of you have been very willing to help out in going out to new areas of the world to speak, gather input, and get familiar with more people. Thank you. I certainly plan to do that as well.

The other thing that was mentioned was political pressure to appear international. My opinion is that doing something purely based on that would be silly and potentially harmful. However, I think we have a situation where we simultaneously need wider involvement from different organisations & areas, are reaching out to new types of participants (including, shock! even regulators in cases like PAWS), and do face some pressures about how we are perceived. An IETF that is open, has broad participation that is based on actual technical substance is in a very good position to continue to be perceived as the authority it is. This is not to say we are not already about all those things; we are. But I think we definitely need to go even further.

A few other responses:

Randy wrote:

>  (1) "need-based" evangelism.  Outreach efforts are more
>      effective if they sincerely address specific needs of
>      the target community.  Does face-to-face participation in
>      the IETF offer things practitioners in under-represented
>      regions feel they need?  As long as we focus on how it
>      could help *us*, rather than what needs it would address
>      for them, it'll be far less effective than it could be.

Very true.

Melinda wrote:

> The industry sector bias in IETF participation is

Yes.

Jari

---

From: "Edwin A. Opare" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 10:01:05 +0000

Juliao,

Thanks for the stats.

To borrow your words: > "the issue is to establish a systematic and effective
process in under-represented regions", and that I believe should start at
the grassroots level & at the regional/national level .

Why does the numbers from the AfriNIC and LACNIC regions keep declining?
Don't these regions operate networks like everyone else? Which areas/WGs of
the IETF will they find particularly helpful/useful to subscribe to? Are
the AfNOG annual meetings enough to encourage participation from the
AfriNIC region? Could the IETF run "a day or two event" annually at the
AfNOG meetings as part of the "AfNOG Tutorials Workshop" to create a lot
more awareness and elicit participation? Could the institution of "IETF
Champions" in the under-rep regions where ISOC has presence influence
participation from these regions?

The ISOC Ghana Chapter for example runs a GhNOG workshop (4 day event)
annually in the month of July where workshop participants are trained in a
variety of areas relating to System Administration, Network Monitoring &
Management, CERTs and many more.

Going into the next workshop this July, the Chapter plans to dedicate a day
of the workshop to awareness creation about the IETF. Will this increase
participation from Ghana in any way? If the approach is done right with a
keen focus on the needs of participants it most definitely will.

At best we all agree there is the need for active participation and
inclusiveness from all the regions if the Internet is to develop and evolve
to its fullest potential. Let's work together to get EVERY ENGINEER on
board!!

Best,

EAO

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 May 2013 11:37:00 -0400

> Is this above advice from Tripadvisor correct?

I believe so, but when I was there a few years ago for the ICANN meeting, 
excess cash was not a problem.  It wasn't hard to estimate how much cash 
I'd need, and whatever was left I spent at the airport.  The wine they 
drink in Argentina is often better than the stuff they send to the UK 
(which isn't bad) and much cheaper.  Take some home in your suitcase, even 
if you have to pay duty it's a bargain.

This still doesn't mean I think a meeting in South America is a good idea, 
though.  See other messages.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:19:14 -0400

The most difficult part for any emergency calling system is location delivery. WebRTC probably doesn't have much impact on emergency calls if all the calls traverse a server of some kind and if the caller location can be looked up based on caller IP addresses, but once you have the end system involved in location determination (e.g., for mobile devices or for DHCP-delivered location), it has to know when a call is an emergency call as you otherwise end up providing location for every call, which is non-ideal from a privacy and battery perspective.

At least in the US, many of the WebRTC services would be considered "interconnected VoIP", so they are indeed subject to 911 obligations.

Henning

On May 26, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups, going back about a year:
> So my read of the situation is much less dire than James's.  As I understand it, the upshot of the initial coordination discussions is that there's not a single, clear "RTCWEB+ECRIT" story.  Instead, there are a few ways you can put them together.  In the short run, without upgrading PSAPs, RTCWEB VoIP services can bridge RTCWEB signaling to ECRIT-compliant SIP, either at the server, or at the client using something like SIP-over-WebSockets.  In the long run, PSAPs can just advertise an RTCWEB service like they would advertise a SIP service today (in LoST).  Neither of these is incompatible with RTCWEB or ECRIT as they're being specified today.
> 
> I expect there are probably some ECRIT considerations that aren't naturally supported in RTCWEB.  Things like real-time text come to mind.  However, it doesn't seem to me that there's gross incompatibility.
> 
> --Richard
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:27:49 -0500

You should double check, regulations about currency markets are changing
very often, custom/immigration officials will almost for sure ask you how
much currency you are bringing and for what, and as the trip advisor page
says don't expect to be able to convert back leftover pesos to foreign
currency.

There are several sites and news media pages where you can check the
current exchange rates, and expect some volatility on the prices

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1585934-sin-cambios-el-dolar-blue-comienza-la-semana-en-895

-J

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 13:41:22 -0300

Hi Edwin,

I don't know about AfriNIC. I know the reality of Brazil and a little
about Lacnic. My answers and additional comments follow.

1. When you appended: "...and that I believe should start at the
grassroots leve & at the regional/national level." you touch a very very
significant point!

2. Our people know RFCs, but are far from knowing about the IETF. So I
thing the process of participation in local events must be systematic,
e.g. one WG that need to do some pre-meeting before an annual meeting of
IETF. I think the *absence of the IETF* is the reason for the decline in
participation.

3. ISOC chapters can help immensely. If can not happen WGs meetings, so
the chapter can do a meeting about IETF at events happening
traditionally: Lacnic, Nic.br, SBC, etc. This is the systematic and
continuous ways, in my view. That such movements may become, time will
tell.

4. I do not believe that language is a problem in local events, but
Lacnic, Nic.br and others events traditionally have simultaneous
translation from English to Spanish and Portuguese and vice versa.

5. I think stimuli help, certainly. But it is not essential. What is
important is the *participation of the IETF* locally. Perhaps an
interesting step is to link the ISOC Fellowships with local
participation. That is, give significant value to local participation
when  happen the selection process.

6. Also, you must remember that in Brazil the infratestrutura the
Internet is very good. I don't know about the Africa countries. But I
think that we can abstract about this.

7. Given the structure of the IETF (very complex) I would recommend that
there were regional and local liaison peoples  helping ISOC chapters in
th plans of participations.

Let me see if your questions have been answered, please.

Regards,

Julião

Em 27/05/2013 07:01, Edwin A. Opare escreveu:
> To borrow your words: > "the issue is to establish a systematic
> and effective process in under-represented regions", and that I believe
> should start at the grassroots level & at the regional/national level .
>
> Don't these regions operate networks like everyone else? Which areas/WGs
> of the IETF will they find particularly helpful/useful to subscribe
> to? Are the AfNOG annual meetings enough to encourage participation from
> the AfriNIC region? Could the IETF run "a day or two event" annually at
> the AfNOG meetings as part of the "AfNOG Tutorials Workshop" to create a
> lot more awareness and elicit participation? Could the institution of
> "IETF Champions" in the under-rep regions where ISOC has presence
> influence participation from these regions?
> 
> annually in the month of July where workshop participants are trained in
> a variety of areas relating to System Administration, Network Monitoring
> & Management, CERTs and many more.
> 
> Going into the next workshop this July, the Chapter plans to dedicate a
> day of the workshop to awareness creation about the IETF. Will this
> increase participation from Ghana in any way? If the approach is done
> right with a keen focus on the needs of participants it most definitely
> will. 
> 
> inclusiveness from all the regions if the Internet is to develop and
> evolve to its fullest potential. Let's work together to get EVERY
> ENGINEER on board!!

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 13:51:20 -0400

Even for location delivery, there's not that much to say at the standards
layer.

For *delivery*, the story is the same as with signaling.  Either the RTCWeb
VoIP service can translate the location information to comply with RFC
6442, or the PSAP can just build a web app that collects it however it
likes.

For *determination*, it's about the browser.  You can do browser-based
geolocation today, to "OK" quality.  Or the browser could implement the
GEOPRIV protocols to benefit from network-provided location.

All that's about implementation/deployment though.  I don't really see any
new standards there.

--Richard

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Henning Schulzrinne
<[email-masked]>wrote:

> The most difficult part for any emergency calling system is location
> delivery. WebRTC probably doesn't have much impact on emergency calls if
> all the calls traverse a server of some kind and if the caller location can
> be looked up based on caller IP addresses, but once you have the end system
> involved in location determination (e.g., for mobile devices or for
> DHCP-delivered location), it has to know when a call is an emergency call
> as you otherwise end up providing location for every call, which is
> non-ideal from a privacy and battery perspective.
>
> At least in the US, many of the WebRTC services would be considered
> "interconnected VoIP", so they are indeed subject to 911 obligations.
>
> Henning
>
> I expect there are probably some ECRIT considerations that aren't
> naturally supported in RTCWEB.  Things like real-time text come to mind.
>  However, it doesn't seem to me that there's gross incompatibility.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]>wrote:
>
>>
>>

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 13:55:51 -0400

Agreed - this is not so much about standards, but developer awareness. If we write any "how to" or similar informational documents, they should probably contain that type of discussion.

There is a browser aspect, however: Right now, users only have a binary choice about location disclosure, even though I suspect many users would be fine with "location disclosure for 911 only", not "disclose my fine-grained location for any purpose you like".

On May 27, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Even for location delivery, there's not that much to say at the standards layer.
> 
> For *delivery*, the story is the same as with signaling.  Either the RTCWeb VoIP service can translate the location information to comply with RFC 6442, or the PSAP can just build a web app that collects it however it likes.
> 
> For *determination*, it's about the browser.  You can do browser-based geolocation today, to "OK" quality.  Or the browser could implement the GEOPRIV protocols to benefit from network-provided location.
> 
> All that's about implementation/deployment though.  I don't really see any new standards there.
> 
> --Richard
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]> wrote:

---

From: "cb.list6" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:29:19 -0700

On May 27, 2013 10:56 AM, "Henning Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Agreed - this is not so much about standards, but developer awareness. If
we write any "how to" or similar informational documents, they should
probably contain that type of discussion.
>
> There is a browser aspect, however: Right now, users only have a binary
choice about location disclosure, even though I suspect many users would be
fine with "location disclosure for 911 only", not "disclose my fine-grained
location for any purpose you like".

WebRTC is just a website in many respects.

I would like to see telcos get out of this starngely engineered and
regulated world and just be a "dumb pipe" for smart emergency services

And, in its place, the relevant emergergency response stakeholders
deblvelop 911.gov and when i need help i go to 911.gov and have a webrtc
call to my relevant emergency agency, or sip://[email-masked] .

And like  root CA certs, the location disclosure is already approved by the
browser vendors (giving user choices is not advised in emergencies)

CB
>> For *delivery*, the story is the same as with signaling.  Either the
RTCWeb VoIP service can translate the location information to comply with
RFC 6442, or the PSAP can just build a web app that collects it however it
likes.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 22:13:27 +0100

On 27 May 2013, at 16:37, John R Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I believe so, but when I was there a few years ago for the ICANN meeting, excess cash was not a problem.  It wasn't hard to estimate how much cash I'd need, and whatever was left I spent at the airport.  The wine they drink in Argentina is often better than the stuff they send to the UK (which isn't bad) and much cheaper.  Take some home in your suitcase, even if you have to pay duty it's a bargain.

It's not necessarily so easy over the course of seven days. But I guess we could also just give all our leftover cash to a deserving Argentinian IETF attendee.  Fernando may like that approach :)

> This still doesn't mean I think a meeting in South America is a good idea, though.  See other messages.

I think Jari's views are spot on. There's a bigger picture question to address, regardless of the meeting venues, and not just for that region. 

Tim

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:31:19 -0400

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Juliao Braga <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 2. Our people know RFCs, but are far from knowing about the IETF.

Juliao, you say they know RFCs. Do they have problems with the RFCs? Do
they see gaps in what they can do, or problems with what the RFCs
recommend?

If they do not, then there is no reason for them to be involved in the
IETF.  If they do, then you can point them to specific working groups that
are working in that area.

---

From: "Christian O'Flaherty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 18:38:57 -0300

Hi,

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Anyway, I wanted to highlight that, as has been pointed out by many, just meeting at some place makes little sense. But the question on the
> table is not just that. We're asking both about the meeting and about what other forms of getting additional participation from the region would
> be useful. My personal opinion is that we need to do multiple things to make an impact. And again IMO, meetings should be a part of that set.
> But definitely not alone. I know many of you have been very willing to help out in going out to new areas of the world to speak, gather input,
> and get familiar with more people. Thank you. I certainly plan to do that as well.
>

I would like to follow up on this proposal. Having a meeting in South
America scheduled two or three years in advance will let us engage
local organisations and individuals on a "project". We did several
activities in the region trying to encourage IETF participation, but
we're going to be much more effective if they're part of a plan with a
strong commitment (and effort) from the IETF community.

Since this opportunity was announced, there were several contacts and
proposals from different groups asking for additional information,
suggesting things to do, asking for details, etc. We now have a much
more fertile ground to do multiple things.

> The other thing that was mentioned was political pressure to appear international. My opinion is that doing something purely based on that
> would be silly and potentially harmful. However, I think we have a situation where we simultaneously need wider involvement from different
> organisations & areas, are reaching out to new types of participants (including, shock! even regulators in cases like PAWS), and do face
> some pressures about how we are perceived. An IETF that is open, has broad participation that is based on actual technical substance is in a
> very good position to continue to be perceived as the authority it is. This is not to say we are not already about all those things; we are. But I
> think we definitely need to go even further.

Going further will also enrich the IETF work and community (making it
more international becomes a side effect). In this region there are
many engineers, software developers, people at Universities, etc. that
could provide new ideas and energy to the IETF.

Christian

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 19:27:50 -0300

Hi Scott,

They know RFCs => they read, learn and understand.

If they have problems, have any restrictions or see any gap on the
content of the RFCs, I don't know, unfortunately.

What I said is that they do not know the processes involved in the
production of what they read. In other words, they do not know the IETF.

But this is not a general rule! Occurs with much people. I don't have
the slightest idea how many would.

Best Regards,

Julião

Em 27/05/2013 18:31, Scott Brim escreveu:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Juliao Braga <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> Juliao, you say they know RFCs. Do they have problems with the RFCs? 
> Do they see gaps in what they can do, or problems with what the RFCs
> recommend? 
> 
> IETF.  If they do, then you can point them to specific working groups
> that are working in that area.

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 19:58:37 -0500

Tell them to start at http://www.ietf.org/tao.html

It is available in few languages 

-Jorge

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 22:34:24 -0300

Thank you, Jorge.

I did this when I wrote a article about IETF, in Portuguese, named "The
ISOC, the IETF and the Internet Infrastructure:
http://ii.blog.br/2013/01/03/a-isoc-o-ietf-e-a-infraestrutura-da-infraestrutura-da-internet/

and, also in Portuguese, "Understanding RFCs:
http://ii.blog.br/2013/02/03/entendendo-rfcs/

Julião

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:35:23 -0400

Keep in mind, though, that the binary decision is usually per site.  So if
the PSAP is web-enabled, the user can provide location to 911.gov, and not
anyone else.

That seems like a solution that's more likely to deploy than something that
requires the browser to distinguish emergency from non-emergency web apps.

--Richard

On Monday, May 27, 2013, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]
> > wrote:
>
> > balance getting something out early vs. compl
>
>

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:08:07 -0500

Great job Julião, thanks for sharing. 

-Jorge

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:29:29 +0200

> strong commitment (and effort) from the IETF community.

Such a project sounds like an excellent idea and it could be interesting 
to pursue it with coordination from the IETF community.

One point worth noting is that the primary work of the IETF is conducted 
over email.  Consequently, the project does not require an in-person 
meeting with the IETF community.  In fact, relying on an in-person 
meeting for the effort is counter-productive training for being 
effective in the IETF.  I don't mean that such meetings aren't useful, 
but that I believe they are secondary to the work that is done over the 
rest of the time.

d/

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 14:02:30 +0200

Hi,

Actually it's not industry that I hear complaining, but individuals.

Eliot

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:46:36 -0400

Riiight. That is why one never has to attend an IETF meeting in person to serve on NOMCOM, one does not need travel support from one's employer to be on the IESG, and why people who never come to IETF meetings are the rule and not the exception with respect to getting documents adopted and published.

Oops - I got my sense wrong there….

On May 28, 2013, at 2:29 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Such a project sounds like an excellent idea and it could be interesting to pursue it with coordination from the IETF community.
> 
> One point worth noting is that the primary work of the IETF is conducted over email.  Consequently, the project does not require an in-person meeting with the IETF community.  In fact, relying on an in-person meeting for the effort is counter-productive training for being effective in the IETF.  I don't mean that such meetings aren't useful, but that I believe they are secondary to the work that is done over the rest of the time.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:01:22 +0000

> Riiight. That is why one never has to attend an IETF meeting in person to serve on NOMCOM, one does not need travel support from one's employer to be on the IESG, and why people who never come to I…

The IETF has a big problem, IMHO, in that effective participation really does currently seem to require meeting attendance.   There's a reason that nomcom members have to show up—if they didn't, they wouldn't be part of the actual culture of IETF, because so much IETF culture is bound up in the physical meetings.

The interaction we get in the physical meetings is really important.   I would very much like to see the IETF try to discover new ways of using the technology our forebears (and some remaining senior participants) invented to achieve the same effectiveness without requiring us to all burn tons of fuel getting to remote corners of the globe.

But "achieve the same effectiveness" is an important requirement for any such new solution.   And right now we don't have a solution like that, so we do what we do, and you are right that that means that effective participation in the IETF is much easier for people who are able to attend at least a sufficiency of meetings on an ongoing basis.   We should see this as a starting point, not as an end state.

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:54:48 -0400

Considering how long and painful the "retrofit" (RFC 4412) for SIP was, 
yes, I think it is important to plan for it early.

Janet

.

[email-masked] wrote on 05/25/2013 03:10:07 AM:

> From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
> To: James Polk <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "[email-masked] list" <[email-masked]>
> Date: 05/25/2013 03:10 AM
> Subject: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting 
> in South America)
> Sent by: [email-masked]
> 
> James:
> 
> > did you know that you have a audio/video realtime interactive 
> communications WG churning out proposals and solutions that is 
> *actively* ignoring "emergency communications" in its entirety? No? 
> Look at RTCweb, which will become a dominant form of interactive 
> communications between humans in the near future. You have an 
> equally active WG in the same area that is addressing emergency 
> communications (ECRIT) that is further along/mature in its documents
> (i.e., they've already produced the bulk of their RFCs, specifically
> RFC 6443 and 6881).
> > 
> I knew that WebRTC is happening fast, including implementations 
> coming out before standards. I don't think everyone have yet 
> realised the full impact this technology will have.
> 
> I didn't know about the details of the emergency communications 
> situation. But it is always difficult to balance getting something 
> out early vs. complete. I know how much pressure there is on the 
> working groups to keep up with things actually happening in the 
> browsers and organisations setting up to use this technology. Do you
> think the retrofit will be problematic, and do you have a specific 
> suggestion about what should be included today?
> 
> Jari
>

---

From: "Jiankang Yao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 09:49:32 +0800

I support to try the new meeting sites such as South America or Africa.

Jiankang Yao

From: Abdussalam Baryun
Date: 2013-05-27 07:38
To: SM
CC: ietf; dcrocker
Subject: Re: More participation from under-represented regions (was: IETF Meeting in South America)

AB

---

From: "Christian O'Flaherty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:20:20 -0300

>
> The IETF has a big problem, IMHO, in that effective participation really does currently seem to require meeting attendance.   There's a reason
> that nomcom members have to show up—if they didn't, they wouldn't be part of the actual culture of IETF, because so much IETF culture is
> bound up in the physical meetings.
>
> The interaction we get in the physical meetings is really important.

I think this is going to be difficult to change unless we let robots
do the work. The social part is an important component for cooperative
work.

Probably, this lack of social interaction in our region is one of the
main reasons for low participation. Most of latin american IETFers are
currently living outside the region and they engaged in the IETF when
living in the US or Europe. It's difficult to be involved when no one
else around is working in it or think it doesn't fit well in their
current work. A physical meeting will help to "demystify" the IETF,
making it "accesible" from a professional perspective.

Christian

>  I would very much like to see the IETF try to discover new ways of using the technology our forebears (and some remaining senior
> participants) invented to achieve the same effectiveness without requiring us to all burn tons of fuel getting to remote corners of the globe.
>

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:36:06 +0200

On 05/27/2013 07:31 AM, Juliao Braga wrote:
> recommended.

Recommended for what? And on what basis?

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 16:59:45 +0200

Jorge,

On 05/27/2013 08:16 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> 
> I feel that is totally OT but for example we have supporters of the
> current government like this one, claiming to be a writer, that if you
> are able to read in Spanish or helped by a translator to read his
> article, you will learn that he is propagating a message that says
> "Internet is the secret weapon of the imperialism." 
> 

I'm currently off-line at the moment, and hence cannot read the
aforementioned article. I would just say that lots of crap gets posted
on the Internet.

I'd also say that I've never heard anyone making that sort of statement.
For instance, the argentinan government itself has a program to increase
Internet connectivity throughout the country -- which should be more of
a datapoint that the aforementioned article should be taken as "a post
by some random idiot" (assuming he says what you say he is saying).

> His view is shared by many, so in the event IETF gets to meet in Buenos
> Aires, if the meeting becomes public, don't be surprised to see some
> coordinated political manifestation.

I live in Buenos Aires, and have never ever heard about such message
about "the internet being a weapon of imperialism". For instance,
left-wing parties (which are the ones usually talking about
imperialism) tend to use the Internet a lot, since it provides a cheap
way of communication when compared to other means (printed media, or
whatever). So, me, I couldn't even imagine such a manifestation.

Besides, I doubt anyone considers us (IETF) as important to be the
target of a manifestation.

I don't think it's productive to alarm people this way. Particularly
without any concrete data.

Note: I'm not not even touching the issue of whether having a meeting in
Buenos Aires is a great idea or not.. but just trying to keep the
discussion objective.

Un abrazo,

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:46:49 +0200

Hi, Tim,

On 05/27/2013 09:19 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> Going into the country isn't the problem, more importantly it seems that
> if you don't spend all your pesos in Argentina, you can't change them
> back to your own currency:
> 

I'm currently off-line, and hance cannot read the article right now. But
I should say that the last time that I checked, it was possible to
change the excess pesos back to your original currency, provided you
kept the original receipt that proved that those excess pesos correspond
to money you had in your original currency. But I could double-check if
interested.

That said, man shops accept dollars and euros (not pounds, though :-( ).
So I guess that for the most part you could just have some small amount
of money in pesos (mostly to pay cabs, I'd say), and move around the
city using your credit card (or, if needed, USD or Euros)

Cheers,

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:19:41 -0300

Hi Fernando,

Please, read my sentence complementary to comment:

"...But who should tell us about the true cenary would be our
Argentine friends."

Regards,

Julião

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:58:37 -0700

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:

> communications WG churning out proposals and solutions that is *actively*
> ignoring "emergency communications" in its entirety? No? Look at RTCweb,
> which will become a dominant form of interactive communications between
> humans in the near future. You have an equally active WG in the same area
> that is addressing emergency communications (ECRIT) that is further
> along/mature in its documents (i.e., they've already produced the bulk of
> their RFCs, specifically RFC 6443 and 6881).
> >
> > Given that young people already think contacting a local emergency call
> center (PSAP) can or should be achievable through SMS, IM, twitter and
> Facebook... just how long does anyone think it will be before calling
> 911/112/999 will be requested or mandated through WEBrtc/RTCweb?
> >
> I knew that WebRTC is happening fast, including implementations coming out
> before standards. I don't think everyone have yet realised the full impact
> this technology will have.
>
> I didn't know about the details of the emergency communications situation.
> But it is always difficult to balance getting something out early vs.
> complete. I know how much pressure there is on the working groups to keep
> up with things actually happening in the browsers and organisations setting
> up to use this technology. Do you think the retrofit will be problematic,
> and do you have a specific suggestion about what should be included today?
>
> Jari
>
>
I'm replying here, rather than down thread, because I believe it's
important to tackle two different statements here:  one James' and one
Jari's.

The first is James' that RTCWEB is ignoring Emergency Services.  Perhaps by
"actively ignoring" James means that the working group considered emergency
services and made a decision he did not agree with, which is that the
baseline capabilities already allows a PSAP or other emergency service to
provide a WebRTC application that would work to connect you to its
emergency responders, and that this was enough.

As context, it's very important to recognize that the WebRTC efforts in the
IETF and W3C *are not building a telephone into a browser*.  We could have
done that in a few weeks.   The groups *are* creating building blocks that
allow a javascript application within a browser or mobile context to add
peer-to-peer audio, video, or data channels to whatever *its* application
happens to be.  That application can be a game (we often use a poker game
as an example here), a puzzle (there's an example where you compete with a
peer in unscrambling a tiled video feed), or a pure data exchange (where
neither audio or video are passed).

In that context, the group considered two questions:

can you use the WebRTC building blocks to create an application to talk to
emergency responders?

should every application be required to have the ability to talk to
emergency responders?

It gave the answer to the first one as "yes", and I am convinced that any
emergency responder that wished to create such an application could do so
with the existing building blocks.  A set of emergency responders could
even create and distribute one that was highly generalized and took
advantage of  LoST's facilities to be useful in many locations.

To the second question, the working group answered "no".  There are
applications of WebRTC which are not general-purpose communications,
including some applications where there will be no audio or video at all.
Requiring that a puzzle should provide you 911 service because it happens
to provide have live video is not really sensible.  Fundamentally, making
every application also be a generalized telephony application with ECRIT
support makes no more sense here than it would for desktop applications;
you could equally require a text processor connected to the network to
support texting emergency responders--after all, it has the UI facilities
and the user's attention, right?

The second statement is Jari's, which seems to imply that the
implementations coming out before standards is a problem in the WebRTC
case.  The implementers in this case are also very active contributors to
both the IETF and W3C efforts, and they are feeding implementation
experience into the process.  That's a good thing, since it is coming along
with a willingness to change implementations to match group consensus.
That won't last forever, obviously, but we have that now and should
continue to take advantage of it while we do.

That's my personal take, in any case, as someone who has been actively
involved in both efforts.

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:15:17 -0800

On 5/28/13 6:20 AM, Christian O'Flaherty wrote:
> Probably, this lack of social interaction in our region is one of
> the main reasons for low participation. Most of latin american
> IETFers are currently living outside the region and they engaged in
> the IETF when living in the US or Europe. It's difficult to be
> involved when no one else around is working in it or think it doesn't
> fit well in their current work. A physical meeting will help to
> "demystify" the IETF, making it "accesible" from a professional
> perspective.

Any sense of why that didn't happen with Australians after
the Adelaide meeting?

I'm not opposed to meeting in South America but there have
been an awful lot of assertions about this or that happening
if we do, without a lot of supporting evidence.  History,
unfortunately, doesn't support many of these assertions, and
I think beating the meeting location question to death is
at least some small distraction from trying to get at the core
issues.

For whatever it's worth, I was participating on IETF mailing lists
well before attending a meeting.  Granted, I'm a native English
speaker and wasn't dealing with that as an issue but probably
more to the point was that there was work going on in the IETF
that directly impacted work I was doing myself.

Melinda

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 10:15:44 -0700

>> discussions from people in Central and South America,
It would seem likely when the participation is heaviliy biased towards 
equipment vendors and software tooling that the participants would be 
more representative of where the concentration of the development sideo 
of that work occurs. Comparative advantage isn't just the domain of 
agricultural products, extractive industries, and low-cost 
manufacturing. That seems likely to be part and parcel of the diversity 
discussion.

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:13:25 +0200

Julio,

I'm worried about people making statements on a random basis.

I assume that many people (IAOC and many others) have made a lot of
effort before getting to the point of formally proposing/suggesting to
have an IETF meeting in Buenos Aires. I bet much of that effort had to
do with making an informed decision on the subject.

However, so far I've read a number of rather uninformed claims about how
bad/not_recommended having an IETF meeting in Buenos Aires would be
(besides the usual discussion of whether meeting should be held where
most of the participants come from, which is a different issue).

IMO, throwing out random comments (arbitrary, or based on what one
"heard", etc.) tends to bias the discussion in an inappropriate way.

Thanks,
Fernando

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 14:37:06 -0300

The bad things that happen in Argentina financially affect only
Argentinians. I'm not saying this is a good thing overall, just saying
that this isn't a problem for tourists and certainly won't be a problem
for IETFers.

Probably these financial 'issues' will even affect positively the
conference's bottom line, as everything is very cheap when priced in
dollars.

If you take a stroll through downtown Buenos Aires today, you'll listen
to many different languages. The place is packed with foreigners, as the
food is great, the city is very nice and everything appears very cheap.

cheers!

~Carlos

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:20:34 -0500

At 11:58 AM 5/28/2013, Ted Hardie wrote:
>On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jari Arkko 
><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> wrote:
>James:
>
> communications (ECRIT) that is further along/mature in its 
> documents (i.e., they've already produced the bulk of their RFCs, 
> specifically RFC 6443 and 6881).
> >
> > Given that young people already think contacting a local 
> emergency call center (PSAP) can or should be achievable through 
> SMS, IM, twitter and Facebook... just how long does anyone think it 
> will be before calling 911/112/999 will be requested or mandated 
> through WEBrtc/RTCweb?
> >
>important to tackle two different statements here:  one James' and one Jari's.
>
>The first is James' that RTCWEB is ignoring Emergency 
>Services.  Perhaps by "actively ignoring" James means that the 
>working group considered emergency services and made a decision he 
>did not agree with, which is that the baseline capabilities already 
>allows a PSAP or other emergency service to provide a WebRTC 
>application that would work to connect you to its emergency 
>responders, and that this was enough.
>
>As context, it's very important to recognize that the WebRTC efforts 
>in the IETF and W3C *are not building a telephone into a 
>browser*.  We could have done that in a few weeks.   The groups 
>*are* creating building blocks that allow a javascript application 
>within a browser or mobile context to add peer-to-peer audio, video, 
>or data channels to whatever *its* application happens to be.  That 
>application can be a game (we often use a poker game as an example 
>here), a puzzle (there's an example where you compete with a peer in 
>unscrambling a tiled video feed), or a pure data exchange (where 
>can you use the WebRTC building blocks to create an application to 
>talk to emergency responders?
>
>It gave the answer to the first one as "yes", and I am convinced 
>that any emergency responder that wished to create such an 
>application could do so with the existing building blocks.  A set of 
>emergency responders could even create and distribute one that was 
>highly generalized and took advantage of  LoST's facilities to be 
>useful in many locations.
>
>including some applications where there will be no audio or video at 
>all.  Requiring that a puzzle should provide you 911 service because 
>it happens to provide have live video is not really 
>sensible.  Fundamentally, making every application also be a 
>generalized telephony application with ECRIT support makes no more 
>sense here than it would for desktop applications; you could equally 
>require a text processor connected to the network to support texting 
>emergency responders--after all, it has the UI facilities and the 
>user's attention, right?
>
>implementations coming out before standards is a problem in the 
>WebRTC case.  The implementers in this case are also very active 
>contributors to both the IETF and W3C efforts, and they are feeding 
>implementation experience into the process.  That's a good thing, 
>since it is coming along with a willingness to change 
>implementations to match group consensus.  That won't last forever, 
>obviously, but we have that now and should continue to take 
>advantage of it while we do.
>
>That's my personal take, in any case, as someone who has been 
>actively involved in both efforts.

Ted - this view (I believe) doesn't reconcile with the view stated by 
Henning's yesterday.

(truth be told, it's hard to separate Henning's stated views from his 
official title and his official organization, given that he writes 
the types of regulations the IETF community merely reads (about)...

"The most difficult part for any emergency calling system is location 
delivery. WebRTC probably doesn't have much impact on emergency calls 
if all the calls traverse a server of some kind and if the caller 
location can be looked up based on caller IP addresses, but once you 
have the end system involved in location determination (e.g., for 
mobile devices or for DHCP-delivered location), it has to know when a 
call is an emergency call as you otherwise end up providing location 
for every call, which is non-ideal from a privacy and battery perspective.

At least in the US, many of the WebRTC services would be considered 
"interconnected VoIP", so they are indeed subject to 911 obligations."

James

BTW- yeah, I know I'm picking a fight - but Jari singled this topic 
out as an example of how various regions of the world differ on how 
they handle certain applications, emergency services being one of a 
very short list he mentioned.

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:20:44 -0300

Dear Fernando,

If I have to decide about a meeting in Buenos Aires based in the
information that I read in the Brazilian newspapers and magazines I
decide to no. By this reason I need to listen from Argentine people, as
you. I believe this is the right way to decide.

The choice of Buenos Aires is a definitive fact, and I have no decision
concerns this selection. My approach was to reinforce the fact that only
you, in Argentina can really guide us, if the decision were to be
revoked. Buenos Aires was a beatiful choice!

It was not an arbitrary comment. It was real and oriented so that any
queries related to media reports, our people of Argentina should be heard.

Therefore, you should have no doubt that I'm hoping to have a meeting of
the IETF in Buenos Aires.

Best regards,

Julião

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 14:25:15 -0400

I would suggest we not try to sort out on this list which sorts of Internet
services are subject to American regulations.

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM, James Polk <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jari Arkko <<mailto:
>> [email-masked]>[email-masked] <[email-masked]>>
>> wrote:
>> James:
>>
>> I knew that WebRTC is happening fast, including implementations coming
>> out before standards. I don't think everyone have yet realised the full
>> impact this technology will have.
>>
>> situation. But it is always difficult to balance getting something out
>> early vs. complete. I know how much pressure there is on the working groups
>> to keep up with things actually happening in the browsers and organisations
>> setting up to use this technology. Do you think the retrofit will be
>> problematic, and do you have a specific suggestion about what should be
>> included today?
>>
>> Jari
>>
>>
>> The first is James' that RTCWEB is ignoring Emergency Services.  Perhaps
>> by "actively ignoring" James means that the working group considered
>> emergency services and made a decision he did not agree with, which is that
>> the baseline capabilities already allows a PSAP or other emergency service
>> to provide a WebRTC application that would work to connect you to its
>> As context, it's very important to recognize that the WebRTC efforts in
>> the IETF and W3C *are not building a telephone into a browser*.  We could
>> have done that in a few weeks.   The groups *are* creating building blocks
>> that allow a javascript application within a browser or mobile context to
>> add peer-to-peer audio, video, or data channels to whatever *its*
>> application happens to be.  That application can be a game (we often use a
>> poker game as an example here), a puzzle (there's an example where you
>> compete with a peer in unscrambling a tiled video feed), or a pure data
>> exchange (where neither audio or video are passed).
>>
>> can you use the WebRTC building blocks to create an application to talk
>> to emergency responders?
>>
> official title and his official organization, given that he writes the
> types of regulations the IETF community merely reads (about)...
>
>
> BTW- yeah, I know I'm picking a fight - but Jari singled this topic out as
> an example of how various regions of the world differ on how they handle
> certain applications, emergency services being one of a very short list he
> mentioned.
>
>
>  regards,
>>
>> Ted Hardie
>>
>>
>

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:34:14 -0700

On May 28, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I would suggest we not try to sort out on this list which sorts of Internet services are subject to American regulations.

Or those of any other jurisdiction. If jurisdiction Z comes to the IETF and says "we have declared protocol A to be a service of type B", and we can think of harmless ways of making B more obvious in an extended version of A, that seems like potential work, possibly even for a WG but certainly for individual submission. But it should be done after A is done (assuming that A is extensible) and after Z has looked at A.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Christian O'Flaherty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:38:51 -0300

> Any sense of why that didn't happen with Australians after

If we're able to get a "proportional growth" similar to what happened
in Australia it will be a success :-)
Latam is a region with 600 million inhabitants compared to 23 million
in Australia.

But I agree with you and I'm not saying a meeting is going to be
enough. In the past it was probably not combined with other activities
planned two or three years in advance. We can do something serious
here and we know the potential available in the region to empower the
IETF even more.

Christian

---

From: "Christian O'Flaherty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:56:30 -0300

> equipment vendors and software tooling that the participants would be more
> representative of where the concentration of the development sideo of that
> work occurs.

This is true, but this is also something where active participants can
help. Many of those companies also have R&D groups in Latam but
unfortunately they're not yet active in the IETF. This is probably for
historical reasons but it's feasible to change. If you know in your
companies, groups or individuals valuable enough to work in the IETF
please reach them and help them (or let me know and I'll do it).

> Comparative advantage isn't just the domain of agricultural
> products, extractive industries, and low-cost manufacturing. That seems
> likely to be part and parcel of the diversity discussion.

Latam is not just agriculture and cows :-)

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:59:08 -0700

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:20 AM, James Polk <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Quoting Henning:
> "At least in the US, many of the WebRTC services would be considered

I will agree with Richard that we shouldn't focus discussion on this list
on the regulatory environment.  But I think there's a piece of this that
goes to the heart of what WebRTC can be, and that is whether the point is
to create a new infrastructure that becomes part of "interconnected VoIP"
or to create a set of building blocks that allows real-time communications
without that infrastructure.

I personally believe that is the latter, rather than the former, that is
the promise of WebRTC.  If I can make peer-to-peer, real time
communications a part of any javascript application downloaded into a
browser, I can create imbue those applications with a far richer
environment.  They can be social in ways that they are not now; they can be
interactive in ways which they are not now; they can be creative in ways
that they are not now (at least not without limiting the experience to
those with specific plugins).

Can you use that interactivity to create a telephone, which you then hook
up to SIP islands or the PSTN via gateways?  Sure, if that's what you want
to do.

But I don't think that's the major goal, and I have argued against a focus
on that interoperability as a major driver of work in WebRTC.  It looks
shiny, as a way to get early users and quick deployment.  But there's a lot
of hooks attached to that lure, and I'd personally advise anyone developing
for WebRTC to focus on native WebRTC apps.  Those will be the ones that wow
users and drive us forward.

Again, just my personal view,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 21:06:54 +0200

Julio,

On 05/28/2013 08:20 PM, Juliao Braga wrote:
> decide to no. 

Could you please provide pointers to such articles? Additionally, could
you please summarize what are your concerns, or what are the concerns
expressed in the articles you've read?

> By this reason I need to listen from Argentine people, as

The problem is that when comments are thrown out to a mailing-list
without checking what's the information that is being spread, that ends
up polluting and biasing the discussion unfairly and inappropriately.

As a datapoint, Buenos Aires is *full* of brazillians these days -- I
guess both because we're geographically near, but also because the
exchange rate benefits brazillians (I haven't checked lately, but I'd
bet that you can get most stuff for about 50% or 70% of the price of
what you pay in Brazil).

And I know of quite a few brazillians myself that have recently traveled
to Argentina to attend meetings, and others that are planning to do so
to attend meetings or conferences (Internet and/or security related)
held in Buenos Aires.

As noted in some other emails, I'm not even weighing in regarding the
pro's and con's of having a meeting in Argentina, but rather pointing
out that making public statements regarding based on what has been
"heard", "rumors", or what some idiot posted on a blog pollutes and
biases the discussion unfairly and inappropriately.

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:13:30 -0300

Fernando,

Please, read the Brazilian newspapers and magazines.

I'm not looking for news from Argentina. I see them and / or read just
the same way that I see or read others news, always "an passant".

This type of issue is not exactly my specialty or interest. But you can
see a handful of recents news in the following locations, among others:

http://www.veja.com.br
http://revistaepoca.globo.com/
http://www.globo.com
http://uol.com.br
http://www.estadao.com.br

or you can use Google, searching for Brazil or other contries news about
Argentina.

As I said to you, but it seems you do not understand, this is not a
relevant question. For me and for many others the relevant question is
your opinion.

Carlos Martinez was precise and clear in your last post. Let us return
to the subject that interests us, please.

Although I do not have much time for this kind of debate, if you feel
comfortable, send me email in private.

Juliao

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 00:06:16 +0100

> Any sense of why that didn't happen with Australians after

The centres for networking industry in Australia are Melbourne and Sydney, in that order.

It's a bit like IETF 51 being held in Grimsby, not London or Cambridge.

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:09:36 -0300

Juliao,

	I went to all this sites (besides BBC Brazil) and searched for
Argentina. There were some news about economy, the lady President, some
about the senate, commercial balance but none saying "huu, scary
Argentina, do not go there".

Regards,
as

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 16:15:21 -0700

> please reach them and help them (or let me know and I'll do it).
$former_dayjob had a R&D office in manaus. We have active kernel/gtk/qt 
development going on there with real contributors. It is however an 
isolated kind of strange tax haven in the middle of the amazon  and it's 
kind of hard to get to.
> Latam is not just agriculture and cows :-)
I am within about 10 minutes driving distance of maybe 1/3 the world's 
ethernet switch asic design capacity, so to ignore the fact that 
concetration and specialization does occur is a little short sighted, it 
also changes over time when the basis for advantage no longer applies, 
or erodes).

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:30:19 -0300

Arturo,

Who said "...huu, scary Argentina, do not go there"? Where? In this list?

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:36:16 -0300

"not be recommended" sounds to me it sounded like "huu, scary, do not
go there".

/as

On 5/27/13 2:31 AM, Juliao Braga wrote:> According to the news
>published for a long time in Brazilian newspapers

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:45:12 -0300

Arturo,

I'm sorry that you interpret this way. But absolutely, I do not mean to
offend. Only expressed a point of view and said that our Argentine
friends could clarify. You can not trust the press, totally.

Anyway, I apologize if there was offense.

Best Regards,

Juliao

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:59:17 -0300

Not taken. It was estrange to me that it were many news about how bad
Argentina is in the Brazilian press. I read frequently BBC-Brazil and
other newspapers of latin america and I haven't read such things, that
is why.

/as

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:45:16 -0430

Hi Edwin,

On 5/26/13, Edwin A. Opare <[email-masked]> wrote:
{...}

> awareness creation by the ISOC local Chapters.

  I fully agree with you that universities might be an excellent starting point.
  I wonder if you have some ideas to shares in how to do this.

Thanks,

Alejandro Acosta,

-- 
=====
^A.......o$

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:50:36 -0300

Just one, Alejandro, here in Brazil:

Next July, 23-26 in Maceio, Brazil will be held the 13o. CSBC (the main
annual meeting of SBC - Brazilian Computer Society. A big meeting!).

I sent an e-mail to coordinators, requesting a BoF to talk about the
IETF and ISOC Fellowships.

If they approve a space, I'll inform the ISOC-BR about it. I'll be there
and I can provide the necessary information. But can be others.

Also, the Vice-President of the SBC (Lisandro Granville Zambenedetti -
[email-masked]) was at IETF 86 in Orlando, and therefore knows
the IETF. Additionally the IETF could talk with Lisandro to joint
actions in universities and research centers in Brazil. I think the
ISOC-BR could do this contact, if necessary.

Juliao

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:09:15 -0800

> It's a bit like IETF 51 being held in Grimsby, not London or Cambridge.

Okay.  So, should we be extrapolating from this to what
we can expect from Brazilians if we meet in Buenos
Aires?

Melinda

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 23:27:35 -0300

Perhaps not. Buenos Aires is also a big hub of technology in Latin
America. In addition as it was mentioned it relatively close from Sao
Paulo, Montevideo and Santiago. Also there are direct flights from other
major cities in Peru and Colombia.

	Going to Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Mexico City or Santiago will always
split audiences as these are the major tech hubs in the region (also add
Bogota, Lima, San Jose and other cities). So, I think it is not
comparable with Australia.

as

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 23:38:58 -0300

I think we can expect a lot of Brazilians people in Buenos Aires.

Juliao

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:47:47 -0800

> comparable with Australia.

I actually don't agree with Lloyd that the reason that the Australian
meeting didn't lead to increased Australian participation was that it
was because it was in Adelaide.  I don't expect a South American
meeting in any South American city to lead to an increase in Latin
American participation, either.

Melinda

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:51:59 +1000

> Any sense of why that didn't happen with Australians after

Adelaide is a small city.  If you were picking Australian cities
to promote local interaction Adelaide would be the 4th-6th city
you would choose.  Melboure, Sydney and Brisbane are the top 3
with some debate about the order.
 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 00:09:07 -0300

> American participation, either.

	If we just do a meeting probably it won't. But as Christian said it
before, that is not the plan. I think that the meeting would be a
catalyst to do more thing, but not a solution by it self.

.as

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 04:19:47 +0100

Melinda,

can you confine yourself to disagreeing with something I actually said?

Thanks so much!

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore [[email-masked]]
Sent: 29 May 2013 03:47
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IETF Meeting in South America

Melinda

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:50:53 +1000

I went to Adelaide. it was my first IETF. I am now an IETF
regular-irregular, of 10+ years standing. So, proof by example, it
increased Australian participation by at least 1.

In fact, I think by scale, Australians punch above their weight. Especially
if you include americans who live in Australia, Australians who live in the
mainland of the USA.

I think IETF going to Adelaide had net positive effects on Australian
participation. Small. but real.

-G

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 06:26:57 +0000

> we can expect from Brazilians if we meet in Buenos

We should extrapolate to Americans and expect that all North American meetings should be in Silicone Valley, otherwise American engineers won't participate.

Unless Americans have some unique ability to travel that South Americans and Australians don't.

Yoav

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 08:34:54 +0200

ICANN 48 is to be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 17-21 November 2013, and I am looking forward to it!

   Patrik

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:00:33 +0200

Hi SM

my answer to your reply,

> what the IESG or IAB is doing or could do in future.

Any done in past may need to change in future to cope with
Internet-world change. I can answer only for the present and future.
> implement the draft by writing code?

I think the draft was Informational, not for coding. The link below,
but I hope you are not the same author because is similar S.M. :-)

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76741.html

Regards
AB

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 05:52:38 -0500

ICANN constituencies, mission and participants are way different than IETF
and an important number of folks receive financial support to participate.

I believe the discussion is not really about if Buenos Aires is the right
location or not but if by meeting in a particular region that will drive
more engagement and participation from the people from that region.

-J

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 07:19:09 -0400

--On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 14:50 +1000 George Michaelson
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> regular-irregular, of 10+ years standing. So, proof by
> example, it increased Australian participation by at least 1.
>...

I think that increasing IETF participation by you has certainly
been worthwhile for the IETF.  

We went to Australia in part because there was already a
significant base of Australian participation (as you point out).
Certainly the organization for which you work had others who
participated on a regular basis, so there should have been
significant support structure for your participation both before
and after your first meeting.  As I've said before, I think we
would be more than justified in going back to Australia and I
would try attend such a meeting.

Even those other factors were not relevant in your continued
participation, if one calculates the aggregate marginal cost to
other participants --in either money out of pocket or in
justifying additional travel expenses against tight budgets-- if
the key accomplishment directly associated with your meeting
there is adding you as a participant, you are a rather expensive
guy for the rest of us.

best,
    john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 07:31:31 -0400

--On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 08:34 +0200 Patrik Fältström
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> ICANN 48 is to be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 17-21
> November 2013, and I am looking forward to it!

Patrik,

ICANN has taken on a formal obligation to meet regularly in
Latin America, sees significant obligation to "show the flag" in
precisely those places from which there is no participation,
maintains a professional staff for promotion of the
organization, and underwrites the costs of meeting attendance by
a rather large number of people as well as the costs of the
meetings themselves.   While I have no reason to expect any
problems in Buenos Aires, ICANN empirically cares less about
effective remote participation and working global Internet
connections from the meeting location than the IETF.   IIR,
ICANN met twice in Argentina while I was actively involved and
may have done so again since (in addition to meeting in other
parts of Latin America).  Most of those meetings worked out
well, a few were less satisfactory but, again, ICANN's goals,
constrains, and meeting success criteria are different from
those of the IETF.

Given the differences between ICANN and the IETF, this is
relevant how?  Perhaps we can use the ICANN meeting as a way to
promote remote and mailing list participation in the IETF of the
variety that would justify a meeting under our traditional
criteria for holding meetings in a country or region?

best,
    john

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 13:39:46 +0200

On 29 maj 2013, at 13:31, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> relevant how?

I was not clear enough on my response.

I see two things discussed:

1. Whether the organisation should "move around" and place meetings here and there.

There is, as many have said on the list and privately to me, many differences between the organisations on requirements on doing so.

2. Whether, given South America is chosen according to a proper selection according to (1), Buenos Aries was a good choice.

My comment was related to questions related to (2). That people felt uncomfortable traveling there.

I now understand my comment could be interpreted as if I felt it was important for IETF to go there. Sure, in general I think anything that can make IETF and other organisations do outreach is good. But for IETF, it is secondary. Quality of documents is much more important, and having local meetings might make documents less US/Western Europe centric in views related to various things. But of course not a primary goal as it is for ICANN (for example).

Btw, after not going to IETF for a while, I will come a few days to Berlin ;-)

   Patrik

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:29:24 +1000

yes, I made a facetious posting because I sensed that we were discussing
outcomes on a basis of 'nothing happened' when in fact, I think by scale,
Australian participation reflects if not exceeds our numerical role in
standards development and Internet matters. There is reason to believe we
do accrete people by bringing a roadshow to town. Expensive way to accrete
matter. Australia is a G20 participant and a net donor into development of
standards worldwide, and ICT. So, its arguable "we didn't need the help" of
a local meeting.

At risk of alienating my comrades from locations seeking to attract an IETF
for local development/inclusiveness and the like reasons, I think John gets
to the nub of the matter: the wider community cost, borne by all attendees
as a 'silent tax' is really very high, for this outcome. We need to be
explicit this is what we're doing. The ISOC grants are probably a more cost
effective way of boosting participation from outlier economies right now.

So lets be explicit. This is a standards-setting body, which is discussing
outreach, inclusiveness, wider participation outcomes, and the cost
consequences on attendance where the core motivation is standards setting.
If the core motivations are changing, maybe that drives things in a
different way?

[I loved BA when I went there for a LacNIC meeting. I worry about becoming
a standards tourist.]

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 06:59:01 +0200

> effective way of boosting participation from outlier economies right now.

Yes, let's be explicit, what is the meeting values or goals? Why we
are considering cost now when we are looking into the IETF future
challenges, or when we are looking into developing IETF activities
(i.e. better outcome change)

> consequences on attendance where the core motivation is standards setting.

Yes, let's be explicit, we need to discuss the IETF meeting not
discuss the IETF business, IMHO, meetings are for establishing better
connection between the IETF and the Internet-Community. IMHO, IETF is
not just a standards-setting body, please read what it says about
itself:

IETF> The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by
producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence
the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.
IETF> The IETF is a Large open international community of network
designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the
evolution of the Internet architecture and the and the smooth
operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual.

AB> so interested individuals are welcomed in the IETF meetings and business.

> If the core motivations are changing, maybe that drives things in a

Don't forget that the Internet is changing and that the Internet
Community is changing, the IETF SHOULD follow thoes changes :-)

AB

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 08:53:05 -0400

On Friday, May 31, 2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> connection between the IETF and the Internet-Community.

The primary purpose of meetings is to solve problems that cannot be solved
by e-mail.

> IMHO, IETF is

Yes and the way that concern is expressed is through technical problem
solving and documentation.  The IETF also _assists_ in outreach but that is
not the primary mission of making the Internet work better.

> Community is changing, the IETF SHOULD follow thoes changes :-)

I don't know what the smiley is supposed to connote, but the IETF responds
to changes in the community by changing its engineering goals and the
problems it works on.

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:01:16 -0300

On 5/31/13 9:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> I don't know what the smiley is supposed to connote, but the IETF
> responds to changes in the community by changing its engineering goals
> and the problems it works on.

	I would add that the IETF should change the way we solve those problems
as another way to change.

	So in summary:

	- Change engineering goals
	- Change problems
	- Evolve the process to solve those problems

/as

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 14:54:54 -0300

Jorge,

I seriously believe you're overreacting and overrepresenting the actual
view of the people in Argentina. Few, if any, members of the Internet
community in Argentina and neighboring countries share this view, and
almost all of us can't help laughing at the ironic situation where some
people use 'the secret weapon of the imperialist establishment' to
distribute their 'anti-imperialist' message :D. So much for secret weapons.

Not only that. In addition, the Internet and social networks have had a
key role in the recent protests against the government. And since the
electoral vote is split in almost identical 'halves', there are as many
people likely to be against the view described in your URL as there are
likely to be in favour of it.

And since, as Oscar Wilde put it, 'the only worse thing than being
talked about is not being talked about', if our meeting there is public
enough to warrant a public demonstration, it would in the end be a
positive thing for us. We'll have something to remember, like the
flooding in Dallas in '06 :D

But don't brace for it. Those who are into this kind of political
wrangling there have other, of much higher visibility, opportunities to
get their 'message' out than stand outside some hotel protesting against
an obscure gathering of engineers.

regards

~Carlos

On 5/27/13 3:16 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> 
> The financial and political current situation is more complex than just
> the manipulation and restrictions on currency exchange and payment of
> obligations.
> 
> I'd really love to see folks from my country become more involved with
> IETF, the opportunity for more outreach and engagement, and also visit
> my country, but as Dave said IETF is not in the tourism business and
> there could be more effective ways to develop some program with long
> term effects to drive more regional participation.
>

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 13:07:24 -0500

Carlos, I clearly stated that the comment was OT, ie didn't have to much
relation with the discussion. I'm not overreacting or misrepresenting
anything, it was just an OT comment about a blog article which IMHO I
consider really stupid and completely out of lalaland.

I didn't say a protest WILL happen, I said "don't get surprised" if some of
these characters show up waiving the flags against the oppressing
imperialism.

Anyway this dialog will not contribute anything,  the only point I keep
making is while I consider a meeting in Buenos Aires a good idea, a better
planned and thought approach may drive more long term participation, like
finding the way to ensure that people that are already active participants
in the IETF process and those who have the skills and motivation can go to
the meetings wherever they take place without worrying too much about how
to obtain the resources to do so.

-J

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:15:23 -0300

Whether OT or not you actively contribute to the mood of the discussion.
And to have a fruitful discussion on the topic I believe we MUST
accurately represent the facts, again, regardless of being OT or not.

~Carlos

On 5/31/13 3:07 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> I didn't say a protest WILL happen, I said "don't get surprised" if some
> of these characters show up waiving the flags against the oppressing
> imperialism.
> 
> making is while I consider a meeting in Buenos Aires a good idea, a
> better planned and thought approach may drive more long term
> participation, like finding the way to ensure that people that are
> already active participants in the IETF process and those who have the
> skills and motivation can go to the meetings wherever they take place
> without worrying too much about how to obtain the resources to do so.
> 
> -J
>

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 13:25:51 -0500

The existence of that article IS a fact

-Jorge