Given the constraint set, can the IAOC post a list of economies worldwide, that given its current understanding of their social equity issues, are not likely to be a problem? I'm not at this stage concerned about the other constraints like technology, access to airports, hotel size. Just, the new(er) constraints regarding this specific problem: If we do now have a ring-fence, I think we need to understand how big the remaining economy-pool is. I ask the question this way round, because I suspect its a smaller set than the other one. If thats not true, then the anti-set is fine. It would help, if we can also see a mark/count of which of them have been visited how often in the past. If its easier, the entire worldwide economy list with a mark for 'not acceptable on this constraint' and a count of attendance would do it. cheers -George On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 24 May 2016, at 9:19, Adam Roach wrote: > >> On 5/24/16 08:20, Leslie Daigle wrote: >>> >>> an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is actually an IETF meeting NOW >>> for planning purposes. >> >> >> >> What I'm hearing (here and elsewhere in the thread) is that we have a >> long-term policy issue that we should address with considerable deliberation >> and at a pace that respects the gravity of the issue; and that we have an >> extremely short term "go or no-go" decision that needs to be made now, right >> now, immediately regarding IETF 100. >> >> While there have been a variety of positions put forth on the topic, I >> think there's good evidence in this conversation that the final, long-term >> policy that we'll form on this topic would probably, if complete and in >> place today, rule out Singapore as a potential destination. It's not a >> foregone conclusion, and I'm not trying to claim anything like consensus. >> I'm just pointing out that it's a real possibility. >> >> From that perspective, it seems that the snap judgement that needs to be >> made right now can only safely be made by revectoring to a different >> location. If the situation is as urgent as you portray it to be, it sounds >> like there's not time for the more protracted course of action you propose, >> unless going to Singapore is a foregone conclusion and this is merely an >> exercise in justification. >> > > I mostly agree with Adam. > > I agree that we need to separate the two issues. And by that, I mean > separate them broadly. > > I absolutely agree we need to fix the policy, and that such a fix would > involve a long-term discussion. It will take time to get things right. But I > think we also need to take a step back from the IETF100 issue when we have > the policy discussion. While the IETF100 discussion will be instructive, it > seems to me that we are in crisis mode. History shows us that crises rarely > result in good policy. > > So let's deal with IETF100 now, with what we do (or will hopefully soon) > know. I think the fact the crisis is happening suggests in the abstract that > we should revector this one meeting without worrying too much about setting > precedents. That may or may not still make sense in the face of more > concrete information about our options. > > Ben. >