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

[Stefan Winter <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>> Dave, how would it complicate the negotiation process to
>> simply say "we are considering the following cities for future
>> IETFs: does anybody know of an issue that they want to raise
>> with any of these?"   We don't have to say when, or how
>> definite.   It's hard to see how this would cause
>> problems--can you explain?
> Exactly.  Singapore may be a special case because it is a
> "city=country" one but, other than Luxembourg, there are
> relatively few others of those that are likely candidates for
> discussion.

Not that it adds particularly much to the discussion at hand, but would
you please note that the country of Luxembourg has 2,586.4 km^2 /
998 sq mi surface, while the city of Luxembourg is just one out of
multiple cities in the country.

If you are looking for area surface matches between a country and its
(only) city, you may rather want to look in the general direction of the
country Monacco and its city Monte Carlo (different name, same thing -
how's that for a special case!).

(Now waiting for someone from Monacco to correct me about my ignorance
of throwing both into one bowl)

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

>    I'm not suggesting supplying padding, but I assume
> that there are multiple places that might be considered in any
> of those regions (and even countries between them) and
> identifying a list of them and asking the question Ted suggests
> should not be an issue.
>
> I also can't imagine why doing that would get in the way of
> negotiations, at least unless the process has turned into "let's
> go to Timbuktu, now let's start negotiating with hotels there".
> Independent of other issues with that city, I'd suggest that, if
> the model comes down to that, we'd be in bad trouble for other
> reasons, so I assume it hasn't.   It would be better if cities
> were eliminated before a call for proposals was issued but, even
> if one were issued that included several cities, I don't see
> huge problems if some candidate venues were eliminated because
> we decided their cities or countries were off-limits: it would
> really be no different from a solicitation and contracting
> standpoint than eliminating one because our preliminary
> investigations concluded that adequate connectivity was
> impossible for that city.
>
>> ...
>     john
>
>
>