> On 11 Apr 2016, at 4:01 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Also, if you live in a country with censorship, or with low bandwidth, it's possible that the only way to attend an IETF meeting will be in person. It would be nice if there were a bright line to draw on one side of which is total inclusiveness, but there is not. We need to make both kinds of meeting work. > > What Stephen said is right--the IAOC needs to systematically, rather than informally, analyze what it is that needs to be done in confidence, and expose the rest to public view. I know this is non-trivial, and I do not say this in the spirit of bashing the IAOC, who work very hard for us with little reward other than our complaining. > > If I were on the IAOC right now, I would be thinking about how to get off of it. I've been in the situation of having what seemed like a big chunk of the IETF upset at me, and it's pretty soul-crushing. Nevertheless, I think what Stephen proposes is the thing the IAOC can do that is most likely to prevent future woe of this kind. I think Dave Crocker’s suggestion that the IAOC advertise the countries / cities it is considering might go a long way to help. If we had heard two years ago that the IAOC was considering Singapore, the objection we heard at the plenary would have been voiced then. In that case, the IAOC might go elsewhere or it might get assurances from Singaporean authorities or it might even decide to go for it anyway. But they would not be caught off-guard as they were last Wednesday. Similarly for other countries or locations. This is not enough to solve all inclusiveness issues and there are deeper issues that need addressing, but this is low-hanging fruit IMO. Yoav