Re: [Mtgvenue] Updated potential meeting location list

Fred Baker <> Fri, 21 February 2020 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB1A12083F; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:54:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GtfkFa9sTWGv; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:54:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DFE9120164; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:54:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z12so1350447pgl.4; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:54:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=fBeW0xxzM1bJSj4SUiAiww0LKkSiGDHEvNYvIwk7uSY=; b=A+gdQJaim3qOJ8aCA+UZ16pD4rmCFCMHt2ljgIxdyPUGTxQJ76RoV2AFLkkUH/nU6Y Ol/efhQDqN9sA//qJ9FjA0EsHJI2d3sD97qJYlpsU+Z3T7TM0nEQ3zbdLAhYpfeNopFX lAUdquBjf5xdzGhs8vJMz0ck0ByB4/ZewX7W6+oXqfLSDfbbhCrlma3nItEqzjGF4VJe kbAc6h0Zd/sESknUU6JNdWxjP9TnixYNZazOzjP76DJjO0f+I/alIyY3f0rAUWAQx9/m UaF5JqdC5cYg19JE/UuGoZzh1EMCf7yzu0HTRCrcmy7sIFAO92heQV1QJnB2LCL5ze1r NlCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=fBeW0xxzM1bJSj4SUiAiww0LKkSiGDHEvNYvIwk7uSY=; b=ZBZ9PVVO/o8TOMiuO6KczhKTrP3xd6fMAMAWrRpED60O0aq7fAVljsubBZYGyXIh8A VI2tFWjZ6x7YJTIhgivadKQJyw3goJbqM3NWPXud5ARO5qIULiXcUvrcWNPlWzA4GqUF RooZ6yH2ijGQr/3SZRS5Yaocv0Kq+yWasrTfp/3g3i2zk3bomjj0A/8pdn7MHjnIMx2+ 1DVxHIK1ff7WNy+zMEZ4cWCv/ObemtvShk+rVGcqXz6wmoLEtXvz7l9dnsvVo/dO9Zy1 udhS7N57nlCCT1Bc14gBBLabRM2PWLyQzy3QpDWgaOwNFRVwRnXkumuFePmC2gleWSxx rT0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUB1exK4JD5feWHMvP3MYDgqYRHddGazOESigybO1T1/pFRd8Fg UuoyH4W0o9u5LUBc7064VZk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxrMEcB4P9Si+l6o13Zwa9aAVI0dqQ6grBfqR026got/NmXD0+DdgX1Quzt2uOIvBFOMDVTzw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:ce0a:: with SMTP id y10mr6703406pgf.44.1582307645092; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:54:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5900:13c4::1007? ([2600:8802:5900:13c4::1007]) by with ESMTPSA id k9sm3209509pjo.19.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:54:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Baker <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4515A50A-C6A1-4F74-8DFB-2C6DD93AE9A6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.19\))
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:54:02 -0800
In-Reply-To: <614D74EECFB580BEF4729544@PSB>
Cc: "Andrew G. Malis" <>, Jay Daley <>,, Brian Campbell <>
To: John C Klensin <>
References: <> <> <> <> <815DF738991D44E1E197E78C@PSB> <> <614D74EECFB580BEF4729544@PSB>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.19)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Updated potential meeting location list
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:54:08 -0000

> On Feb 21, 2020, at 7:38 AM, John C Klensin <> wrote:
> There are no cities listed as "not suitable".  Does that imply
> that every city that has been evaluated has turned out to be
> suitable (a result I'd find a bit odd but not impossible) or
> that places deemed unsuitable are simply being dropped from the
> web page?   I think the latter would be a bad idea if only to
> save renominations.  Listing them might lead to some
> second-guessing debates but they are probably inevitable and, in
> the interest of transparency...

My guess is that cities deemed "unsuitable" are quite a few more than the ones deemed "suitable", but exclusion might be for any number of reasons and may have happened simply in the meetings committee before anybody boarded an airplane. Recovering that data would, I suspect, be reasonably difficult. Also, we considered having meetings in a number of places that turned out to not work for reasons other than in the venue-selection RFC; for example, we looked pretty hard at possible meetings in Sydney and Auckland, which were set aside because of cost - not because there was an actual issue with the city (I have never been to Auckland, but consider Sydney a very viable place).

From my perspective, I would rather see people nominate cities they would like investigated than try to resurrect what is now old data.

I also suspect that we will want to think in terms of a budget for exploring places. We could pretty quickly nominate any city that has an international airport, and task an intern with determining whether each city also has conference facilities of a certain size. That sounds simple and possible, but it would also mean that we suddenly have a whole lot of make-work that we don't know will go anywhere. I would suggest that we confine research to places potential hosts want to hold meetings and have reasonable transportation and conference facilities, and explore at most N options per unit time.