However San Diego venue is not downtown, which seems it was the main excuse to avoid having it in Madrid, despite the public connections (several bus lines and cheap taxi) between the Madrid venue and downtown is by far much better than San Diego. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@xxxxxxxx> Responder a: <rpelletier@xxxxxxxx> Fecha: viernes, 8 de abril de 2016, 17:50 Para: Tim Chown <tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> CC: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ietf@xxxxxxxx Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Asunto: Re: China >Tim, > >> On Apr 8, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Tim Chown <tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 8 Apr 2016, at 16:14, Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> some on the IAOC wanted to go back to SD for IETF 100 but the facilities were not available >>> at the right time >> >> Ah, I was expecting the plenary drumroll to reveal just this - IETF100 at San Diego. >> >> A shame it couldn't happen, but perhaps an indicator we do need to keep planning 3-4 years out. >> >> And for the right venue, we should be able to slide the dates forwards/back a week or two. > >We aggressively pursued venues in San Diego, including the possibly of shifting dates before >and after the scheduled calendar dates. The rule is we don’t change those dates, but there >was a willingness to consider that for IETF 100. > >San Diego is one of the most popular venues in the US, so it turned out that around our dates >there were already city-wide events that made it impossible to secure a venue and necessary >overflow hotels. > >Ray > >> >> Tim >> >>> >>> Scott >>> >>>> On Apr 8, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@xxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> I am sorry to hear that. Our "open and inclusive process" comprises >>>>> many participants from China who have traditionally faced harsh and >>>>> unpredictable visa problems in North America. In fairness to them, we >>>>> held that meeting in Beijing. Note that we did so following an >>>>> extensive discussion on the IETF mailing list and after negotiating >>>>> the removal of a rather ominous hotel clause, as well as an unfiltered >>>>> network in the meeting venue. >>>> >>>> Yes, and we did this openly, and I don't feel we did the same thing here. >>>> And there were still surprises, I'm told. >>>> >>>> I was very surprised at the announcement for 100. >>>> I kinda thought we should go back to San Diego as for IETF 1. >>>> (well. Maybe IETF101 should be same as IETF 1... maybe IETF 100 should be >>>> same as IETF 0, and be entirely virtual...) >>>> >>>> (I didn't go because I generally have funds for two IETFs a year, >>>> and given the hassle, and my concerns about what I would eat, it was simpler >>>> to skip. I skipped BA for a combination of economic, but primarily family reasons) >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works >>>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > >