Stafan,
My apologies... bad example. I was, however, thinking less of
the city area to country area ratio than about the "probably
only one plausible city in the country to hold an IETF-sized
meeting" issue. I should have been more clear about that or
chosen a better example (or, more likely, both).
john
--On Thursday, April 07, 2016 14:35 -0300 Stefan Winter
<stefan.winter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> Dave, how would it complicate the negotiation process to
>>> simply say "we are considering the following cities for
>>> future IETFs: does anybody know of an issue that they want
>>> to raise with any of these?" We don't have to say when, or
>>> how definite. It's hard to see how this would cause
>>> problems--can you explain?
>> Exactly. Singapore may be a special case because it is a
>> "city=country" one but, other than Luxembourg, there are
>> relatively few others of those that are likely candidates for
>> discussion.
>
> Not that it adds particularly much to the discussion at hand,
> but would you please note that the country of Luxembourg has
> 2,586.4 km^2 / 998 sq mi surface, while the city of Luxembourg
> is just one out of multiple cities in the country.
>
> If you are looking for area surface matches between a country
> and its (only) city, you may rather want to look in the
> general direction of the country Monacco and its city Monte
> Carlo (different name, same thing - how's that for a special
> case!).
>
> (Now waiting for someone from Monacco to correct me about my
> ignorance of throwing both into one bowl)