[Mtgvenue] Re: is identification of individuals already covered by BCP 226

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 02/04/2026 00:42, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2026 at 10:43:38AM -0400, stndrds-inacio stndrds-
> inacio wrote:
>> immaterial.  My home country and its governance is immaterial to>> the operation of the IETF network.  ...

> I think that if we start to make decisions about policy desires 
> against host countries

I think the above nicely demonstrates a core mismatch in this
discussion. (*)

Some people (Chris, I think, and me, and others) consider that
the IETF meeting n/w is a small, temporary, meeting n/w that
ought follow policies the IETF community control for how to run
a better-than-good meeting network (and allow experimentation).

Others, (Toerless, I guess, but not alone despite the many mails:-),
consider that if community-preferred meeting n/w policies conflict
with venue-local regulations, we ought preference the latter for
diversity reasons, esp. if that might affect the set of locations
considered acceptable for possible future in-person meetings.

I don't think Toerless is alone is his opinion, nor that Chris
and I are part of a small group of oddballs. Nor do I think the
different positions are reconcilable. (Mine is the right one,
obviously:-) But I do think, in the light of the IETF-125 n/w
experience, we could and should document more about what we
consider a better-than-good meeting n/w is, and, separately,
how we think that affects location choices and ought feed into
LLC venue selection.

For me, that suggests we ought iterate on ekr's draft text,
and then have a fairly typical MUST vs. SHOULD debate as to
the impact on considering venues not clearing that bar.

Cheers,
S.

(*) The word "against" is just wrong. It assumes that anyone
who didn't like the IETF-125 n/w setup is anti-China or some
such. That seems like a classic case of a mail reader assuming
they know the inner thinking of a mail sender, a setup that
basically never works out.