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

Lee Howard <> Mon, 11 April 2016 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8870312E979 for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.552
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4o1ApWPBjHvj for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E9812E840 for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u3BDcaZS032225 for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:38:36 -0400
Received: (qmail 5607 invoked by uid 0); 11 Apr 2016 13:38:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? ( by 0 with ESMTPA; 11 Apr 2016 13:38:35 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 11:19:34 -0300
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
From: Lee Howard <>
To: <>, <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$> <> <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
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: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:38:40 -0000

On 4/7/16, 12:07 PM, "ietf on behalf of Dave Crocker"
< on behalf of>; wrote:

>On 4/6/2016 9:32 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> It may be true that the community could provide a list of vetoed and
>> locations for the Meetings Committee to work with. That is a possible
>> 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
>> 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.

I¹m still unsure about the proposal, but in the case of Asia, and when
we¹re negotiating contracts for multiple meetings often well in advance,
you could practically list all countries that have cities large enough to
We¹re considering meetings in
Hong Kong
(and so on and so on)

Build a matrix of mandatory and desired features and evaluate each
potential destination¹s qualifications. Some are too specific (one roof)
to list before hotel negotiations begin, but others (accessibility by
disability, two-flight rule, other political climate, safety, multiple
hotels, etc.) can be evaluated very early in the process. In doing so,
that information remains on the record, and can be updated later.

>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.

Right, although I¹d like to include cities because some countries are
acceptable (Japan) but some cities within them may not be (Fukushima).

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