Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse

Dave Crocker <> Thu, 07 April 2016 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4641612D54E for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9RNPg_9HcK0Y for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B103D12D899 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u37F7gF5004400 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:07:42 -0700
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$> <> <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:07:40 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 08:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:19:11 -0000

On 4/6/2016 9:32 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> It may be true that the community could provide a list of vetoed and approved
> locations for the Meetings Committee to work with. That is a possible approach.
> Another approach might be for the Meetings Committee to suggest some venues and
> see what the community feels (this has happened before with a poll on some
> venues that Ray sent to the community).

A practical issue is that announcing a venue before there is a contract 
in place for the meeting site impairs our ability to negotiate the 
contract.  And I'll suggest that this is not an issue that one should 
try to 'game', such as by trying to obscure the choice by floating 
various venue possibilities or otherwise hoping that we haven't signaled 
the choice to a specific city/hotel.

Rather, the way to deal with the choice of acceptable/unacceptable 
countries or cities is for the IETF community to develop lists 
reflecting the range of choices.

The IETF's established set of regions is Eastern/Southeastern Asia, 
North America, Europe.  For each of these, the total list of countries 
is relatively small, so that a priori consideration and assessment by 
the IETF community ought to be feasible.

(Other regions fall into the asterisk realm of 1:1:1:* and are already 
subject to prior discussion with the IETF community.)


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking