Re: [78attendees] We'll meet again...

"Spencer Dawkins" <> Fri, 06 August 2010 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 392453A6A53 for <>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 08:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.241
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.241 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.243, BAYES_50=0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7EwQUhvjMi93 for <>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 08:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE4F3A695E for <>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 08:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from S73602b ( []) by (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MhScU-1OM23U2caI-00McnP; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:18:32 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <>
To: "Thomas Walsh" <>, "WORLEY, Dale R \(Dale\)" <>, "David Kessens" <>
References: <><><> <><><>, <><> <>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:17:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:O249VB7MD8+PId8p4myyLImA6xBZxd3JqUw7cIt7Bac 8jb82Du3wd6SNDcVMGgXvQMR9N0FqbL5PobjIeDMFNYcUCnEfd lEm1WWQaFhtNyAdjrMaopONfzvXw+VXlS1yZ48cD2KsJAExRHA R+d6H8rd0HXOI9WHsmj9zCZ/cMSGeRkZCFBjHRQXN63s7eWPeE 9G5NkqLasp2Rxy0gwTZ6TCOa65NcXB/KHDg1RMoprU=
Subject: Re: [78attendees] We'll meet again...
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF 78 attendees list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:18:06 -0000

My understanding (forgive me if I am confused) is that the point was, 
Hiroshima was more aware of, and more accommodating to, the IETF than Tokyo 
would likely have been; Vienna, Prague, Stockholm and Maastricht were more 
aware of, and more accommodating to, the IETF than Paris and London were ...

Not that any of these places were SMALL, but that they were smaller than 
some of the obvious BIG places that we could have gone to, in the same 

I think that sounds about right.


> Perhaps smaller isn't the right word.  Some people were complaining about 
> having easier airline access than Maastricht or Hiroshima afforded. 
> Applying that as a screen would have meant missing such wonderful venues 
> as these two.  I'd like to keep the focus on the nice job of the 
> Maastricht host.