Hi, Also wearing no hat. On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:51:38PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote: > criterion to a broadly-defined "world regions" one, I don't > think that decision should sneak up on the community by virtue > of what can (or cannot) be detected from reading between the > lines of the I-D or inferred from what that document does not > say. I don't think changes to the document are necessary but, > unless the criteria are clear to, and agreed by, the community, > I think there is a problem. I don't think it's sneaking up on anyone. draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-03 has been submitted to the IESG for publication. That document literally calls out the world regions, and gives the reasons why. It's been going through our usual processes. How is this not "clear to, and agreed by, the community"? This is how we make decisions around here, I think, and the criteria are being decided in keeping with those procedures. What's the problem? Now, of course, it is not _yet_ agreed by the community, since it hasn't been published. But that is the problem that MTGVENUE was set up to fix, and I don't think anyone said the IETF should stop having or arranging meetings while that working group laboured. Nevertheless, I think this is a good test case. We should look at the Bangkok through the lens of whether all the MTGVENUE processes have worked as expected. I am particularly curious about whether the mandatory network critera are met given some reports I've read of network requirements in Thailand and the results (e.g. https://ooni.torproject.org/post/thailand-internet-censorship/). Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx