On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:43:58PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
[snip]
> Can you make a case of what benefit from a meeting in the DR
> and who? If you can, I'd be sold, if it was determined to be
> in NA.
Creating new requirements is interesting. Once the 'Johnny
Appleseed' spreading of awareness of this Internet thing was
no longer relevant in the US due to the 'net being mainstreamed,
please define the "case of benefit" that has been made about
*any* of the meetings?
Other than "attendees can go, at a reasonable price and with
reasonable connecivity", what other meeting location constraints
do we have? I can think of three: within the NA footprint,
joint planning with ARIN for one meetinga year, and a host
that can pay.
This is not the joint meeting. Both attended costs and site
connectivity have been subject to initial kicking of tires.
The impetus for examining the location is a willing host.
The entire point of this thread was to address the "attendees
can go" question. Apparently, some have a specific definition
of 'NA footprint'.
The assumption that other parties would be offended was
introduced. Since this is a group of those who practice
applied science, I think facts are pretty relevant. Rather
than speaking for a population, I talked to a colleague at
LACNIC. His personal reaction was nothing but positive,
and he indicated he'd get an official response.
Again, the entire point of coming here was to seek input
from a sample of attendees about any relevant attendance
concerns. I'm glad we've seen some.
jzp
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
