On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 02:07:26PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote: > > _That_ problem, which would be more than sufficient to justify > an appeal, is that, normally, when someone says "this draft is > ok because of a provision in some other draft" I think what I was arguing is that the topic you are asking about just isn't in draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process. The policy is not the process, in the good tradition of the IETF, and therefore if you want the policy you need to look somewhere else. That somewhere else is draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy, and I don't think it's been developed in secret so I don't think it's fair to suggest that's being snuck past anyone. > However, those "open network" criteria have been around for > years and years and, while the MTGVENUE drafts (IMO, quite > properly) repeat and document those criteria, I don't see that > they change anything in what we've been told is being practice. Right. All I was saying is that the Bangkok selection is a great opportunity to see whether it matches the (currently in draft) output of the MTGVENUE work. If people think there is a problem in this case, but the selection matches the selection process and policies and the mandatory criteria, then that tells us the output of MTGVENUE is still not right and we need to do more work on it. _My_ no-hat and no special knowledge sense is that Bangkok indeed meets the criteria and will be a good place for a meeting. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx