Khaled, We’re not looking for “accurate count” or “votes,” we are looking for a simple consensus on whether or not the IETF LLC should *explore* a set of locations to determine whether or not they are suitable for an IETF meeting. There are *many* factors that are taken into account involving everything from Internet access, visa availability, cost and time of (average) travel for attendees, venue expenses, safety and much more. If you want to see what items are considers, look at the venue requirements RFC and if you want to see how the community gets involved in these discussions, look no further than the debate that erupted before our FIRST meeting in Singapore. Ole > On 31 Aug 2020, at 12:56, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Why we don't focus on something and work to achieve it? > > With fukk respect to Latin/South American cities, we were focused on three countries, Australia, New Zealand, and Egypt. > > It is good that you support two countries simultaneously but we still have to choose one location for the meeting, so accurate answers will be counted as it is like a voet. > > Maybe the IETF should think about a counting chart that shows the choices of all participants to get an accurate result about the majority and the consensus. > > Khaled Omar > > Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office: +1 415-550-9433 Cell: +1 415-370-4628 Web: protocoljournal.org E-mail: olejacobsen@xxxxxx E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Skype: organdemo
