Hi Leslie, Thanks for the update. One query... On 13/04/17 00:39, IAOC Chair wrote: > The general comments on meeting in the US played along the same lines > as has been shared on the IETF discussion list: people are variously > for moving all meetings out of the US, or adamantly against, or > somewhere in between, each position supported by good reasons. I have seen mail to the list that argued for not meeting in the US within our current planing horizon. Some of that was adamant. (For clarity: I'd agree with the position that we ought not risk meeting in the US for a few years, incl. that we ought, if possible, move ietf-102 on the basis that the we don't have a predictable situation with the US at the moment and that we ought not plan to meet in any place that's currently that unpredictable.) I do not recall the opposite on the list, i.e. someone adamantly arguing that we ought continue to meet in the US. There were some mails that I'd say maybe weakly argued for continued US meetings in the relevant timeframe. But nothing approaching adamant. Is that my bias in reading the list traffic or did I miss some mail, or is it possible that the (public) list traffic and (relatively private) survey responses are less similar that your mail implies? That last wouldn't be surprising, but I'd hope that in that case some of the people who filled in the survey who adamantly said we ought continue to meet in the US would be willing to justify that on the list. If none were, then I think the IAOC ought consider that as a relevant input in their decision making. (Not as a winning argument, but as a relevant thing.) Thanks, S.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature