On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:09 AM, IAOC Chair <iaoc-chair@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On March 31, 2017, we put out a request for input on experiences with travel to the recent IETF meeting in the US, and solicited information pertinent to plans to attend IETF meetings within or outside the US in the coming years. We have had over 350 responses to the questionnaire, and we appreciate each and every one of them! We did not gather the data in such a way for it to reflect a representative sample of the IETF community, or of potential meeting attendees. But we did gain insights from those who responded that we did not have before. Can the data be put out in an anonymized fashion without revealing PII (such as name or email) ? The data has been interpreted for the community but it might be useful for the community to look at the data gathered as well. It might help change opinions or people on the fence or people to rethink their positions. > Over 40% of the respondents said they had attended 20 or more IETF meetings, and over 50% of them said they were authors of active working group documents. Slightly more than 40% stated US residency, and just less than 60% said they were not US-resident. Since the US-meeting disproportionately affects those traveling to the US, I think that might be an axis against which data needs to be interpreted. The burden on many US citizens would be (possibly) extra travel in case the meeting is not located nearby (such as in Canada or Mexico). Also many nationalities might not need to apply for US visa or face lesser stringent barriers to entry. So knowing the country of citizenship might be useful in the data. > 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. Again might be useful to see the data. > The IAOC is continuing to gather data on travel to the US, concerns about traveling outside of it, and what alternatives are possible for IETF 102. Our focus is currently on whether holding IETF 102 in San Francisco is the best option to meet the needs of IETF work, recognizing that we cannot predict the future. While it may take several weeks to allow for review and negotiation of any alternatives (if applicable), we are moving as quickly as possible because we realize that people will need time to plan their travel. Is there a rough timeline for this ? -- Vinayak