 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but often concluded that it is less important than other concernsAs long as the host gets to choose the venue, other concerns will remain secondary, including incremental travel time and cost. This was the key point that was, once again, explored the last time we had a plenary discussion about venue.
Yes, exactly.Let me see if I can ask the question in a slightly more productive way.
Ray and IAOC:I assume that, in each of these out-of-the-way cases, you have asked potential hosts to pick locations that meet other criteria, such as the airport one, and that they have said "no, we won't sponsor except in our chosen location". Could you confirm that?
I also assume that you have attempted to launch a "sponsor IETF meetings" program on a "contribute to a fund" basis, as distinct from "host this particular meeting", and either gotten no useful response or discovered that host in-kind contributions in specific locations dominate possible cash contributions. Can you confirm that as well?
Finally, I assume that the IAOC has done an analysis, not only of what it would cost us to abandon hosted meetings entirely, but of what it would cost --both in absolute and meeting-fee terms-- to say "no" to hosts who insisted on out of the way locations. May we see that analysis not later than the plenary in Stockholm?
john
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.