Brian, This seems to me to be somewhere on the continuum from "no brainer" to "rocket science" - with a high likelihood of not being too near the "rocket science" end. It would be good to caution the IETF Secretariat and meeting sponsors to consider the potential for difficulty in getting into and out of a specific meeting venue. It is also a good idea for would-be IETF meeting attendees to take time in advance of meetings to discover for themselves whether there has been in the past - or is likely to be in the future - any difficulty in getting into or leaving some specific meeting location. This applies to a lot of different considerations, including political, medical and physical issues with entry into and exit from any location. Many companies (and other organizations) maintain travel advisory status on a number of places. And sponsor organizations are most likely aware of the potential for embarrassment if the meeting location they sponsor causes a lot of grief for many of the wanna-be attendees (roughly equivalent to not having thought to offer T-shirts). There are plenty of reasons why people who might wish to - or even need to - attend a meeting are unable to do so, and we have been able to deal with it in the past. That's one reason why there is redundancy in the AD and WG Chair positions. About the only thing that really ought to be done is to add a "caution" to the web page under each IETF meeting, that would be where people could look to find out about any known issues relating to the meeting venue. Worst case scenarios are the ones where someone gets to a venue and finds out about serious problems that require them to immediately leave, or is turned around en-route because of - for example - border entry issues. -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] --> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter --> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:01 AM --> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: Re: I-D --> ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt --> --> Joe Abley wrote: --> > --> > On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:55, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: --> > --> >> Well said Barry! --> >> --> >>> From: Barry Leiba --> >>> --> >>> My biggest concern is in sections "2.3. Freedom of --> Participation" --> >>> and "2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas", in that --> I'm not sure --> >>> how realistic they are. Without getting overly into --> politics (let's --> >>> please not), I think they reflect a somewhat naïve view --> of some of --> >>> the political realities. Specifically... --> >>> --> >>> Meetings should not be held in countries where some --> >>> attendees could --> >>> be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not --> >>> guaranteed for --> >>> all participants. --> > --> > --> > Indeed. Applied with vigour, this restriction implies --> that no country --> > is suitable to meet in. That leaves us with parts of --> Antarctica, a --> > floating venue located in international waters, or zero-g --> bar BOFs in --> > outer space. I favour the latter. --> > --> > A slightly more realistic approach might be to hold --> meetings regularly --> > in different countries with (ideally) divergent security/ --> immigration --> > policies, in the hope that successive meetings might at --> least exclude --> > different sets of people. --> --> This is a very important issue as we consider visiting --> countries we've never --> visited before and as visa regulations change in countries --> we have been --> to often. It would be very useful to know how more people --> feel we should --> tune these criteria. --> --> Brian --> --> --> _______________________________________________ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@xxxxxxxx --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf