I was trying not to comment on this thread but frankly, I think it is important to offer a different perspective regarding the prioritization to consider. I am not judging adequacy of a particular location. I am sure other locations may pose problems. I do understand the frustration felt with US locations and I have seen this problem take place with other standard meetings than IETF (e.g. OMA in Chicago in August had many delegates (mostly from China but not only from China) unable to attend also for the same reasons and despite OMA having a much more formal company level membership based approach...). But reading the below, I have heard too often attendance #s and sponsorship considerations used to justify overlooking disenfranchisement, and it is simply not OK... I think that if we aim at being an open standard organization, the highest priority must always be to not disenfranchise any IETF participants. While IETF offer safeguards and other mechanisms (e.g. email discussions) to reflect different views, being unable to attend meetings can be considered as severely impairing participation. o knowingly have locations that would prevent the participation of some should be treated as a major issue as it disenfranchises and it could be construed as a way to favor certain agendas. Other considerations like sponsorship, amount of attendees may matter but they are second order considerations that do not compare to the need to address disenfranchisement first... In fact a fairer view could be that if IETF can't address it for a specific meeting, may be IETF should simply not hold the meeting instead of justifying moving ahead because others can attend... If some can't attend, none should be given the advantage to attend and have their agenda pushed forward. That is imply not OK not matter where, why it happens etc... I am sure that view may be controversial for some. That's not my intention and I am not that inclined to argue it further... But I wanted to make sure that if this discussion is continued, such a point of view is also captured and documented... I hope it help. Thanks Stephane -----Original Message----- From: David Morris [mailto:dwm@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:21 PM Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Dave CROCKER wrote: > It's not a matter of being dragged into politics. (Or at least, it > shouldn't be.) > > It's essentially an engineering task of working to maximize the > ability of people to attend IETF meetings, by looking for venues where > visa processing is the least problematic. > > That does not mean "no visas" or anything else simplistic, except that > border controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers. That is a one dimensional view of a multiple dimensional problem. The object should be to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF meetings. Ignoring the point made that contextual issues often change between when a meeting is scheduled and when it actually happens, predictable visa process has to share the stage with travel costs, perception of personal safety, etc. Finding a venue with no visa issues may also be a venue where average travel cost is doubled or more. I submit that is not a solution. Finding a venue with no visa issues and no local sponsor is not optimal. Etc. I think it will be much more productive to focus on how to minimize the visa process instability associated with travel to an already selected venue then to try and select a venue whose current visa rules are very tolerant. Having seen this subject many times over the past few years, it is clear to me that starting the process early to obtain a clear set of procedures from the venue country and making sure all of the steps are known and in place well in advance is the best way to mitigate the problem. I suspect that travel industry professionals know the 3sigma processing time for visa applications to other countries from their country. Use that expertise to plan timelines for encouraging attendees to start the process. Etc. David Morris _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf