Howdy, I'd like to take one step up on this discussion. When the discussions were going on about how the IETF would look when the IAOC/IASA process was in place, my sense of the intent was that the decisions taken by the IAOC were not intended to have any impact on the technical content of the work of the IETF. The sense of that is captured in RFC 4071 in section 2.2, especially bullet point 2. I commend the IAOC on the community consultation in which they are engaged, and I believe that it has shown pretty clearly that some folks believe that this meeting venue could or will have an impact on the technical work of the IETF. The work of GEOPRIV has been called out at least twice, and it is my personal understanding as a participant in that working group that the questions raised there are reasonable. It likely would *not* have an impact on many groups (as AD, for example, I supported an interim meeting of LEMONADE in Beijing, and I think there was no issue there). But the point remains that there may be an impact on both existing working groups and plenary discussion. My question is: if the IAOC shares the conclusion that there is a potential impact, does it still believe it is the right body to make this decision? If not, is it a plenary decision of the IETF or is there some other body or process needed to make this decision? Every decision made by the IAOC has some impact, obviously, and Fred and others have been very persuasive in the past on the impact that making it possible for participants to attend can have. I think their efforts to make it easier for colleagues from China to attend are generally intended to alleviate a long-time problem in that regard, and I support them. But I think we have reached a gray area in our decision making process, where the lines of what the community wanted the IAOC to do when the IASA process was created don't quite match the impact of this particular decision. My personal take on the resolution of this is that the Chinese government has provided a long-recognized way of routing around the problem. The "One Country/Two Systems" formulation created by Deng Xiaoping sets aside special administrative regions that clearly are part of China and yet do not share the characteristics which have been of concern in this community consultation. If we can make participation easier for our Chinese colleagues by meeting in Hong Kong or Macau, I think we should do so, and I think so even if that means the meeting must be unsponsored. Note that I lived in Hong Kong on two separate occasions, and I retain friends there, so this easily could be influenced by own feelings for the territory. 我是美國人； 我也是一點香港人 (I am American, but also a bit of a Hong Kong belonger). Again, I want to commend the IAOC on their consultation, and I hope that we can find some way forward that meets the community's needs as equitably as possible. Speaking only for myself, regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf