[Mtgvenue] Re: Venue selection, transparency, and the rate of change

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Eliot,

Yes an answer and a correct one, but not _the_ correct one.  Trying
to pick a "the correct one" as a definitive authority is likely to
generate unpleasantness and consume a huge amount of time and, if it
turns out to miss something, generate recriminations and more
unpleasantness.

Let me suggest a different sort of answer, partially suggested by
Jay's comments about consultation.  The community of IETF
participants is a very broad one in terms of geography, contacts in a
wide range of countries, people who travel extensively, and people
who work for companies/ organizations with a presence in many
countries.   Sure, the LLC should examine whatever listings can be
easily identified.   But I hope no one is suggesting the they should
then retreat to a soundproof room, consult those lists and whatever
crystal balls and mystical omens they have handy, and then proclaim a
decision.  Instead, I'd expect a summary of their tentative
inferences from those lists or, if they don't feel able to go that
far, a summary of what the lists have to say, and then an inquiry to,
and consultation with, the community.  Maybe something could be
missed that way but if, for example, a meeting were contemplated in
Upper Slobbovia and we discovered that no IETF participant had ever
been there and it wasn't on any of the lists, perhaps that would be a
reason to not plan on a meeting there and/or to question whomever
proposed it as a venue very intensely. I don't think trying to phrase
than in a way that would be put on a list of criteria would be wise.
However, it is probably part of a mandatory criterion that is not
listed: "think and exercise common sense".

And, again, this is also an argument for post-selection monitoring
and making adjustments if needed and possible: governments and
political situations change and a country that was assessed very
positively three or more years ahead of the meeting dates might have
an entirely different situation a year out.


--On Monday, March 30, 2026 15:08 +0200 Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> There's a bit of an obvious answer:
> 
> Transparency International.
> 
> We could argue about whether it is the *correct* answer...
> 
> BTW, I'm not saying that this should be the *only* criterion upon
> which the LLC should decide.  There's a reason why there are only
> two mandatory criteria.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
> On 30.03.2026 14:28, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>> > I thought Ted offered a pretty good proxy to address the 
>> subjectivity aspect: open rule-making processes.
>> 
>> Fair enough. But how would the IETF LLC interpret this? Is there
>> an  independent 3^rd  party listing of legal systems with that
>> property?  Like an international criminal court or UN listing or
>> something? In  short - how do you define, assess, and enforce that
>> requirement?