Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 25 May 2016 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F6012D1AB for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.216
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=TYjAtSO5; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=taRK3z4K
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hqab6B6tKp2B for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3EC12DC04 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4PJdEv5015689 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 May 2016 12:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1464205166; x=1464291566; bh=RqI4e1UcrnuImyivOvrZ+Lw9K1F+Ff7vs4TjjzX1alc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=TYjAtSO5NUcUvwxWvN6T+OJ+MT8UdGo4IRYM+UrsaYcRSX9CI0GvbKOXzx1wMbQBe 7bAL3Gl1YnXRNQkXkYUpJRMZXhvm1voVZUfF1cNIOarChZlsYbVotw1zwkLl5Ca6zY jLzRLm1nOIlyG48g1PCQDofYVi8h8kI8ZTxAKgvY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1464205166; x=1464291566;; bh=RqI4e1UcrnuImyivOvrZ+Lw9K1F+Ff7vs4TjjzX1alc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=taRK3z4KG8iWIElcmTcbI5Dro5VRknYSjTmkaRU+fgHs3qqUqEcY4cEWKAAt2kEf7 eQM1JrlnUX8txjulyGKZM0mf6vCfeIg02vOXfo98WL3ZGfgMPK8CVJEtrhjSbagRzm eGHPA+T/r3P4JqFcC//wkp52l+4ThNhYnG2RHIVM=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 12:38:25 -0700
To: Adam Roach <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605242300120.194@rabdullah.local> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:39:30 -0000

Hi Adam,
At 11:56 25-05-2016, Adam Roach wrote:
>Yes. I would offer up the DPRK as an existence proof of a place that 
>the IAOC should unequivocally exclude from consideration. With that 
>extreme example as an anchor, the question is where the line between 
>"acceptable" and "unacceptable" is drawn.
>It would be ridiculous to hold this conversation with an assumed 
>principle that every country on the face of the planet is an 
>acceptable destination.

There is a meeting survey at  The 
country mentioned above is not listed as a venue preference.  There 
was a survey in 2010 ( 
).  A comment on Page 36 is related to this thread.

S. Moonesamy