Re: limiting our set of cities

Jay Daley <> Thu, 20 February 2020 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E983E1200EF for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 02:55:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dNsifPjHUaRq; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 02:55:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from macbook-pro.localdomain (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E0BF12001A; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 02:55:30 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: limiting our set of cities
From: Jay Daley <>
In-Reply-To: <17764.1582194882@dooku>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 23:55:27 +1300
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <17764.1582194882@dooku>
To: Michael Richardson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:55:33 -0000


> On 20/02/2020, at 11:34 PM, Michael Richardson <> wrote:
> Jay, and/or Jason:
> Can you tell the community if the LLC has any plans/thoughts to stop looking
> for new places to meet, rather to just establish a list of 10-15 cities where
> we have successfully met, and simply repeat?

I don’t think that is an LLC decision to make - it’s a community decision.  Having said that, my initial impression after just a few months in the job is that idea would not sit well with our sponsors who want to see us visit new/specific cites and countries.  Reducing sponsor interest is a big risk to take.

> Many have suggested this as a better policy, but it seems that it's just
> discussion.
> Christian Huitema made a good case already for the Asia list being not just
> Bangkok/Singapore, but also including Tokyo/Yokohama and Seoul.
> That's four for Asia.
> One could easily add: North America: Vancouver, San Francisco, Montreal, Philadelphia.
> Europe: Prague, Berlin, London, (Paris?)
> There, that's 12 cities already, and I said 10-15.
> Could probably add another three.  Maybe Madrid will wind up on the list.
> I'm sure that many of the cities on your list are potentially interesting,
> but why bother make the effort?

Unfortunately I have no insight into how those cities first appeared on that list but I do see the need for a new transparent process for the future.  

> Yes, we should have "*" in the rotation 1-1-1-*, but we should do it
> intentionally as reach out.
> I don't see Austin (or Ottawa, or Malta) as being reach-out, as nice as they
> might be.

It sounds as if you have additional/different criteria from those specified in the policy [1], but those cities are compliant with the policy as written, namely:

   o  Travel to the Venue is acceptable based on cost, time, and burden
      for participants traveling from multiple regions.  It is
      anticipated that the burden borne will be generally shared over
      the course of multiple years.

   o  The Venue is assessed as favorable for obtaining a host and
      sponsors.  That is, the Meeting is in a location that it is
      possible and probable to find a host and sponsors.

   o  Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are likely
      to be such that an overwhelming majority of participants who wish
      to do so can attend.  The term "travel barriers" is to be read
      broadly by the IASA in the context of whether a successful meeting
      can be had.

   o  Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are



Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
+64 21 678840