[802SEC] FW: [802SEC] Rome decision
Forwarded for obvious reasons ...
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> [mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:28 AM
> To: wk3c@wk3c.com
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Rome decision
>
> Carl,
>
> I'm glad you agree with me, but I suspect you wanted to send
> this to the
> reflector as well as myself...
> :)
>
> Mat
>
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Engineering Fellow
> BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@wk3c.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:17 AM
> To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Rome decision
>
> I agree with Mat. Many other organizations routinely meet in rotating
> venues to spread the travel cost and burden amongst their
> attendees and
> to
> encourage broader international participation than they'd get if they
> only
> did NA venues. They and their attendees find the costs
> managable/acceptable.
>
> When I can find same hotel (assuming that Pat's link was to
> the correct
> propery) for an average of $244/night and a lot of
> $160/night, someone's
> clearly doing something very wrong when our survey says "How about a
> hotel
> rate of $425 (or was it $450?) per night?" The comparison to
> Vancouver
> (which is NOT a nNA venue and shouldn't have been used as a comparison
> in
> the first place) at somethnig like $175/night, the results are clearly
> going
> to be skewed ... I'd bet that the results would have been
> VERY different
> if
> the question had been "Rome at $200/night vs. Vancouver at $175/night
> ...
> though again, Vancouver shouldn't have been an option since it's not a
> nNA
> venue. The question should have been "Rome vs. some other nNA venue"
> with
> REASONABLE, well-negotiated costs for both ... not a "high-ball" on
> Rome.
>
> I also agree with Mat that we must do nNA venues and that there is NO
> good
> reason not to (as evidenced by the fact that other organizations
> routinely
> do them).
>
> Finally, I think that Roger's comments about ITU skew the facts a bit
> (though I'm sure he had no mal-intent). ITU is a special
> case. It is a
> quasi-governmental body under the UN and it owns its HQ facilites in
> Geneva
> with sufficient meeting space and all of the built-in translation, IT
> facilities, and support staff for such meetings. However, as Roger
> admits,
> they do encourage their WPs (some of which are pretty large)
> to meet in
> non-Geneva venues. Thus, asserting that "ITU can claim to be
> international
> despite the fact that a majority of its meeting are held in Geneva" is
> not a
> valid claim. ITU is, by definition, an international
> organization - it
> doesn't have to "prove" that to anyone. We, on the other hand, have
> been
> challenged and characterized as being a "US organization" and will
> continue
> to receive that criticism (which might at some point "stick") if we
> don't
> "walk the walk." (If the IETF started meeting exclusively in the US,
> you
> could be sure that there would be an international clamor
> that IETF was
> becoming a US-centric/dominated group.)
>
> Carl
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> > Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:52 AM
> > To: Rigsbee, Everett O; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rome decision
> >
> > Buzz,
> >
> > I think in part what I'm recommending is rent the meeting space
> > separate. If the meeting costs are $1000 a piece, that's fine. Let
> > people figure out where to stay on their own. If we make
> > recommendations or provide links to places okay, but if we go
> > to Europe
> > let's not sign up for room blocks. If you can find sponsors,
> > terrific!
> > But I don't think we should decide not to meet outside of
> > America purely
> > because we don't have a sponsor.
> >
> > Mat
> >
> > Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> > Engineering Fellow
> > BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
> > Office: +1 973.633.6344
> > Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> > email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> >
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.