Hi Mike! > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike StJohns <mstjohns=40comcast.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2024 7:01 PM > To: The IETF List <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: IETF Chair <chair@xxxxxxxx>; iesg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: IETF 125 Decision and Survey Summary > > Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you > recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > Hi Roman - one of the most egregious issues with our last visit to the PRC were > additional conditions and restrictions imposed upon the conference and > transitively on the attendees AFTER we had signed the meeting agreement > documents. Understood. > Do we have a specific list of conditions we have to meet? E.g. mandatory > individual logins to the ietf network? No open ietf network? Hotel providing > mandatory security to prevent non-registered locals from dropping by? No > VPNs permitted? > > Do we have a signed agreement that we will have open access to the wider > internet? Per BCP226, the IESG is not directly involved in the negotiate of venue agreements. I'll defer to the IETF Administrative LLC who originally assessed the candidate Chinese venue as suitable (https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_Shenzhen_Venue_Assessment_Report_2024-06-11.pdf) per Step 2 of https://www.ietf.org/meeting/planning/; and have begun further assessments and negotiations per Step 4a. [snip] > Does the IESG have a line in the sand with respect to restrictions it will allow? > Could you publish those please? The IESG has not prepared anything and relies on the community consensus guidance from BCP226 for meeting expectations. The working practice with the IETF LLC is that if anything arises during contracting or on-site planning which would change a dimension of the meeting in some way from which "it was run in past meetings" (purposely vague), the IESG is given warning and discussion might ensue. Regards, Roman > Thanks - Mike > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 20, 2024, at 11:43, Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Unless I'm misreading this, these seem like horrible results. I guess they pass > some low bar we've apparently set, but aren't there *better* choices in Asia > region that don't eliminate half the people that would normally attend in > person (and 62% of NA attendees)? > > > > I would think that we'd at least try to maximize overall participation > > not just make sure it meets some bare minimum (49% reduction in total > > on-site participation is good, really?) > > > > Thanks, > > Chris. > > > > IETF Chair <chair@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> Hi! > >> > >> The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is appreciative of all > >> of the community input provided during the July 2024 survey [1] on > >> convening a meeting in China for IETF 125 (March 2026). Based on this > >> input, the IESG has decided that a venue in China would meet the > >> requirements of Section 2, “Why We Meet”, of RFC8718. This assessment > >> answers the question posed in step 4b of the IETF LLC’s venue identification > and selection process [2]. > >> > >> More details about this decision and the survey can be found at [3]. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Roman > >> (as IETF Chair for the IESG) > >> > >> [1] > >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/Og9ESsfDWrhy5Ea8t > >> so7HfaqY5A/ > >> > >> [2] https://www.ietf.org/meeting/planning/ > >> > >> [3] > >> > https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_125_Decision_and_Survey_Sum > >> mary.pdf > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> IETF-Announce mailing list -- ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe > >> send an email to ietf-announce-leave@xxxxxxxx > >
