Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:

> > Cough cough ARIN cough. I don't know why they need to meet face to face 2
> > or 3 times a year. But, i am sure ppml will tell you it is a ground up
> > process and these people on ppml like traveling and talking about
> > policy.... And they do what members want.
>
> I don’t speak for the organization or even for the Advisory Council, but I
> can
> tell you that we get more focused community input and participation during
> those
> face to face meetings than we do during the rest of the year.
>
> Like it or not, when trying to get interactive participation from more
> than 5 or so people,
> there’s really no useful substitute for the face-to-face meeting. Every
> existing
> alternative is less useful and comes with significant drawbacks.
>
> So, yes, I believe ARIN does what the members want, but more importantly, I
> believe that the face to face meetings are a useful mechanism to preserve
> the
> bottom up nature of the policy development process.
>
> > Much of our industry can be gleened by googling pictures of "peering
> > cruise". At my office, we joke about that a lot. Peering cruise …jeeshhh.
>
> I suppose you can joke about anything you want. Personally, I’ve never
> been on a
> peering cruise, but I will say that it’s a pretty classic fallacy to
> discount the
> value of the social times at conferences. In fact, I find those times to
> often
> be when most of the real work gets done and when most of the benefit of
> getting
> everyone together in the same place is realized.
>
> While NANOG puts on a good technical program, my company gets far more
> benefit from
> the time I spend meeting with network partners, suppliers, and potential
> customers
> during the conference than they will ever see from my time in the
> sessions. So much
> so that I generally attend the sessions on an as-available basis  when I’m
> not able
> to schedule a more useful meeting. There are, of course exceptions. Some
> of the
> sessions (maybe 3-4 per conference) are worth holding my time open to
> attend, but
> most are not.
>
> This does not mean that I don’t consider NANOG valuable, just that the
> primary value
> is in the ability to meet with other attendees rather than directly in the
> technical
> program itself.
>
> I don’t mean this to be insulting to NANOG. I think the PC generally does
> a fine job
> of putting on a good conference with great content. Most importantly, it’s
> good enough
> that it draws in a large selection of people I need/want to meet with in a
> concentrated
> time frame in a single location.
>
> Peering fora, peering cruises, and the like have a similar effect.
>
> So scoff all you want, but if you imagine that these events are silly
> junkets where
> nothing gets accomplished, then you are seriously underestimating this
> community, IMHO.
>
> Owen
Owen,

I agree with most of what you are saying. I'll digress on if arin needs to
meet or exist.

Perhaps it is me and my sensibilities, perhaps it  is my miser corp
culture, but i could not even dream of asking to go to Jamaica (arin
area) for the last ARIN meeting.

I am not alone. Have a look at Ren's comments from

http://research.dyn.com/2006/02/lovely-peering-cruise-on-lake/

Posted here:
"
The Peering Forum is more for peer & IX information distribution and
contact refresh across a multi-continent body of participants than it is
for initial trial concerns. The invite only nature implies the attendees
are actively peering at one or more of the IXs sponsoring portions of the
Forum. Many of us, hand raised here, are taking vacation time, covering
flights, upgraded cabins, etc. to help remove the conflict of interest
concerns. It is unfortunate there is not a link to the agenda as it is jam
packed with useful peering focused presentations and more than qualifies
this as a business need. Last year dozens of participants interacted for
the first time and I’m looking forward to similar introductions later this
month. Putting a face to the name helps significantly in this very
relationship based role which has more to do with international relations
than enable."

I am not willing to fork over my pto or personal cash to "remove the
conflict of interest" . I'd rather buy transit.

And, i am also not willing to spend my corp money with dec-ix or others to
send my competitors on a cruise. Unless ...

why cant this just be business?

That said, i have never been on a peering cruise and all my peering needs
are met with peeringdb and email. So it is just business for me, and no i
am not going to spend money at an IX that does not see things the way i do.

CB