Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13, 2009 Plenary Session for your review


Hi Roger,    I don't disagree with any of the points you have made
especially that Local Hosts are the best way to go.  I'm not sure what
you think we could put in an RFP that would help to attract hosts for
802 Plenary Sessions, but I'm certainly willing to explore that and I
hope our Treasurer and Bob Heile would be willing too.  Hosts can make a
tremendous difference both in terms of the deal you get and the
logistics support, but also the influence to encourage new and varied
attendance from the local region.  This certainly has worked for the
IETF in the past but I have been in touch with Ray Pelletier, who is my
counterpart in their organization, who has confessed they are having
greater difficulty finding such hosts each year and that they are
actively considering a plan to transition to a self-funded model for
meeting financing like ours.  So perhaps we can focus our appeal for
hosts to one that requests support by way of influence with local venues
and government agencies and that all-important logistical support
without having to place a large financial burden on them too.  


That would certainly seem to be a logical approach to the problem
solution.  That coupled with a commitment from our membership to bear
the extra cost for nNA venues would move us in the right direction and
return some value for our nNA venue investments.  


To answer your question:  In order to get a firm "best-price" proposal
from a venue for specific dates there is always a short-time fuse.  No
venue in their right mind is going to sit and wait indefinitely for some
"Bird-in-the-Bush" organization to make up its mind.  So we have allowed
until Sept 18th to hear feedback on the proposed venues.  If we have a
clear winner coming out of that we will need to close that deal to
prevent losing the option to other business.  Most venues give you a
48-hour period to sign the contract or you lose your option to the other
business.  Since we are already fairly late in the game in booking this
venue, we dare not risk losing the option for any non-US deals by trying
to delay.  However, if we do not have a clear winner at that point we
might have to make time for reconsideration with a 3rd option included
if one were to be available at that time.  We're still taking a risk of
losing one or both of our prior selections by hesitation but without a
clear mandate to select one or the other we have no choice but to try
another round.  


What I would suggest to you is that if you do actually turn up what you
believe to be a firm and reasonably priced alternative that includes a
committed host-sponsorship for the venue, that you make an immediate
announcement of such to the EC and that may be enough to encourage some
EC members to call for a reconsideration with the 3 alternatives on
equal footing.  It may make the process more risky and complicated but
it may also get us on the track to a more meaningful form of
international participation that has all the benefits you have cited.
If you can't get there in time at least you may be able to field an
independent proposal for a venue selection for our next available slot,
March 2011.  Either way we get past the log-jam of endless debate over
cost vs value and that's a good outcome all by itself.  OK ???   



Thanx,  Buzz

Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee

Boeing IT

PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM

Seattle, WA  98124-2207

Ph: (425) 373-8960    Fx: (425) 865-7960

Cell: (425) 417-1022



-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [] 
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 11:35 PM
To: Rigsbee, Everett O
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13, 2009
Plenary Session for your review




I understand and appreciate your effort on this. It is hard to come  

up with a venue that will satisfy everyone. I will check my WG for  

input during our interim.


I have a comment and then a couple of questions.




I'm personally not enthusiastic about the Rome idea. The reason is  

the same one I have mentioned as long as we've had these nNA  

discussions. Namely, I don't think that a nNA venue, in a vacuum,  

plays a role in establishing our international credibility. We don't  

become "international" because we drop into Rome and then pick up and  

leave at the end of the week. Other than the visa requirements, we  

could have been anywhere.


Sorry this is sounding like a broken record, but I want to repeat  

what I've said before. I see this from an 802.16 perspective. IEEE  

802.16 has established an broad global following, and our choices of  

meetings does have a role in that. We rarely hold a US-based interim  

session. But we don't pick a site at random. We do site selection  

based on proposals from prospective hosts. This means that we are  

going to places because the locals want us there. That is a huge  

difference. A host has to develop a proposal and convince someone - a  

host company, and often a local government - that it would be a great  

idea to bring 802.16 to their community. They spend months planning  

the activity, and they often sends locals to advance meetings to  

learn the system. They make special efforts to get us introduced into  

the community. We make friends. When it's all done, the local  

industry community has learned something about 802.16, and we've  

learned about something about them. And some of the locals find that  

this is an interesting organization, and they keep coming to  

meetings. They become members. That builds our global participation.


I understand that an IEEE 802 plenary is more complex than an  

interim. But, still, I think that there are local organizations with  

the capability and interest in hosting a plenary. I think it makes  

sense for IEEE 802 to build a more global following by engaging in  

meeting planning with a global community.


I recognize that, when you have heard me say this before, you have  

encouraged me to pursue such local hosts. I also accept the fact that  

I have not been able to deliver any yet. On the other hand, without a  

detailed package to bid on, it's pretty hard for a host to make an  

offer. We don't even have a clear idea how the finances would work in  

such a case. Maybe we need to spend more time deciding if we want to  

go this way and, if we do, putting together a request for bids.




Is there any possibility that you would consider another alternative  

venue if an offer was available? If so, when you would need the  

offer? I'm asking because I have a specific potential host in mind,  

with a potential venue. When the EC discussed prospective cities in  

July, I didn't realize that you were going to be making the decision  

this soon.







On Sep 7, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:




> Colleagues,    Please see the attached summary of our final venue

> choices for March 2009.  Please share the information with your

> respective Working Groups during your interim sessions and give us  

> your

> and/or your WG response on preferences.  We need to close on this  

> choice

> very shortly now or we will lose the options.  We still have an option

> for Geneva for March 2011 that we can pursue.




> Thanx again for your cooperation and support.      :-)




> Thanx,  Buzz

> Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee

> Boeing IT

> PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM

> Seattle, WA  98124-2207

> Ph: (425) 373-8960    Fx: (425) 865-7960

> Cell: (425) 417-1022





This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.