Re: Updated potential meeting location list

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ross

> On 20/02/2020, at 5:12 PM, Ross Finlayson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> It might be useful to give the *complete* list of cities that have been “assessed as suitable”, rather than just those that “have been added to those assessed as suitable”.  For example, several cities where the IETF has met recently - e.g. Prague, Berlin, Vienna, London, Paris - were not mentioned, yet Vancouver (where we have met many times, and are about to meet again) is listed in the "have been added to those assessed as suitable” list.  So the list is a little confusing.

In my email announcement I provided a link to the complete list as a numbered reference in the text to aid readability with the URL at the bottom of the message  For reference that URL was https://ietf.org/how/meetings/admin/meeting-location-input/

> Also, FYI, “Malta” is a country, not a city.  (Presumably you mean “Valletta".)

Yes thank you for that, there were a number of city oddities on the list but I missed that one. 
> 
> It’s also a little surprising that no cities in Australia or New Zealand are listed.  (We met in Adelaide in 2000.)  I would expect to see Sydney and Melbourne considered as potential venues, as well as possibly Brisbane, Perth, and Auckland (New Zealand).

Australia and New Zealand do not count as Asia in the policy (the policy specifically states that Adelaide was not in Asia). Consequently our focus for some time has been on those venues that do count within the regional rotation. 

For the moment we are not accepting any recommendations for potential additions to the list until we have put some more transparent processes in place that help us manage the work. 

I hope that clarified things. 

Jay (who lives in New Zealand)

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director