Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

"Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com> Fri, 27 May 2016 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29ED612D6C0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=thinkingcat.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oMoMZcxlaAX3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a106.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C74B12D0CD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a106.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a106.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199502005CF2E; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=thinkingcat.com; h=from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=thinkingcat.com; bh=U EHFbEMwuKLg32V6Id+icba4Zrk=; b=q7P3Vu3SmXQ78oUQeERpVm/qyEapX2rsI 75wU6L0D6dPwpoDXy1jdryrUXMQLbxOnV3OIRz/7/GPT7meD6pQdpg5Lec/OSIiN pIwJsnESkUlf5K8TXktL5add45XU9keaNc42gifKGO1H+Wt7u6r4Xy0FyRWvAAw+ RnvH6MY6PU=
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (pool-72-86-47-69.clppva.fios.verizon.net [72.86.47.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: leslie@oceanpurl.net) by homiemail-a106.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60D9A2005D002; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:07:10 -0400
Message-ID: <0B02725C-57B6-44BC-9832-4ABB49A4126B@thinkingcat.com>
In-Reply-To: <fc11a832-cbdd-e5b1-b286-74013bcae739@dcrocker.net>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <E449AFCA-A49D-42FE-A8FF-973CA61F302E@network-heretics.com> <6771A81D-EBE9-4A88-B7BA-E1CE9778C1BF@gmail.com> <ce9c4d5c-2939-6260-7cdd-d42718aa7d07@gmail.com> <F437BCE0-5555-4AA5-B7A0-38C35F92ED76@thinkingcat.com> <fc11a832-cbdd-e5b1-b286-74013bcae739@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zoAzuxH1HL4gqj2T2oBevCfCdeI>
Cc: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:07:14 -0000

Dave,

> As for the concern you cite about earlier timing, when the choice of 
> venue is still 'hypothetical', can you please provide some details 
> about the nature of that concern and how it was concluded that those 
> concerns should dominate the choice of timing?

No, because nothing has been concluded :-)  .

I was trying to convey that we have taken one step towards gathering the 
kind of information Margaret/Melinda were discussing, but that figuring 
out the *next* step is (in my personal opinion) trickier.  It’s a work 
in progress.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 27 May 2016, at 12:00, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 5/27/2016 8:52 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>> Asking for input while things are still completely hypothetical is
>> potentially too soon (can get people spun up about things that 
>> won’t
>> work out for practical reasons).
>
>
> Leslie,
>
> A working premise has been that disclosing a target venue when the 
> contact with sites there are about to happen or are happening will 
> affect the negotiations.  Simply put, if they have good reason to 
> think that we are committed to that city and there aren't many choices 
> there, their negotiating leverage gets dramatically better than ours.
>
> As for the concern you cite about earlier timing, when the choice of 
> venue is still 'hypothetical', can you please provide some details 
> about the nature of that concern and how it was concluded that those 
> concerns should dominate the choice of timing?
>
> Thanks.
>
> d/
>
> -- 
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net