Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Wed, 05 April 2017 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA3B1287A0 for <>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 05:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.379
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L594I1Tqapzd for <>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 05:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20B36127B31 for <>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 05:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b187so13534833oif.0 for <>; Wed, 05 Apr 2017 05:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:cc; bh=p2Kau6mJ33qb/0SCX4cLs8jtOvs463lAvSEwFMR8WYE=; b=m8W5IFKUbHkzFDQmzt/6fcM5dIJtNN1IpphBSEjQYZP1WIgGuDeanNdP1pA0DhL4TG f37HcnLEuEkn71m2ho7wijzR9D1b5FJ1lQl5YnnNFiiQJEqGCq7uMNWDGpfNe+uOTRw/ 4GXpR7IwbDq4pr1E2IsZPoeABB3UbQVdD7km9g5gbu9qOd82WT6IEnB6lgt5mVvRzgHa wqAvxQ8R/4lCk2nRYxoZveO57ichKumPPscUctFLiS9ruRGkxD2OV604szAazrqdrKSw lKrbyUS2egBXHzgi5J/tavJyDnE59fWRQteHx7tmDRhKvp/csNZkRR+dTnecOWHPlP+J 8wzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:cc; bh=p2Kau6mJ33qb/0SCX4cLs8jtOvs463lAvSEwFMR8WYE=; b=aM6J6elTp88CrUtF/obaH3QoGnXXlXu9I1x8IbbJ1kOdSm4lSF6zJjKB+p6tNuiDPF RQrlJgFZYKgQBILF1w7pMKjZQwyReBtmwOMDYSbH27B5fwOO5D69YoKF64BWID+OM7IY hveRhHijz8twq+5FIMQwpz6eGHeQ2Gc8FoErIDNnkrmifdFsVVWoTebV9dTynnyaCcjg V0ffFAvz02jbKRHv+eWtyaIoDy/T+ePu54fVkGr4pchOqJ7gS8qun5B7WUd9YcH5Gcrq laZY+hWgs1ZkSDB6Z3SeVXYNtRqDEh/i2c11RwXxwWMF91vmD/jeIQTeSzwEE3ccWYHX KOmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1/TvnzjMRjvAXvH8WczPIdGZl9eYZn5zmgjvxLE2GuPjSqXDY26K1xZxQMwACEDPYXYLEK4C4m3DXH1g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id a20mr16278239oth.89.1491396400035; Wed, 05 Apr 2017 05:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 05:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 08:46:39 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: XExEjFZxit0PUqbAnLlvdIwGowY
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403043530a4a4bd36054c6ac8c9
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 12:46:44 -0000

The core problem here is that the Trump administration has followed through
on campaign pledges to implement rules that are irrational and
unpredictable. At this point in time, nobody can know for certain what the
rules will be in six months time, let alone the two year planning horizon
for meetings.

What we face here is a situation of predictable unpredictability. In such a
situation, it is necessary to always plan for the worst case scenario. That
the situation 'might' be OK is irrelevant in the context of a two year
planning window for a meeting costing roughly a million dollars a time.