Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Dave,

As for the concern you cite about earlier timing, when the choice of venue is still 'hypothetical', can you please provide some details about the nature of that concern and how it was concluded that those concerns should dominate the choice of timing?

No, because nothing has been concluded :-)  .

I was trying to convey that we have taken one step towards gathering the kind of information Margaret/Melinda were discussing, but that figuring out the *next* step is (in my personal opinion) trickier. It’s a work in progress.

Leslie.

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
ldaigle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 27 May 2016, at 12:00, Dave Crocker wrote:

On 5/27/2016 8:52 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Asking for input while things are still completely hypothetical is
potentially too soon (can get people spun up about things that won’t
work out for practical reasons).


Leslie,

A working premise has been that disclosing a target venue when the contact with sites there are about to happen or are happening will affect the negotiations. Simply put, if they have good reason to think that we are committed to that city and there aren't many choices there, their negotiating leverage gets dramatically better than ours.

As for the concern you cite about earlier timing, when the choice of venue is still 'hypothetical', can you please provide some details about the nature of that concern and how it was concluded that those concerns should dominate the choice of timing?

Thanks.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]