Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Regions

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 03:26:33 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 15:27 21-06-2016, Dave Crocker wrote:
>While I'm not inclined to ever argue that the IETF community will 
>find a way to avoid debating over the details of anything, I believe 
>the problem you cite hasn't shown up -- or at least not shown up in 
>force -- in 25 years.

During the first fifteen years most of the meetings were held in the 
United States.  During the next fifteen years there was three lengthy 
discussions about whether the location of a meeting was 
acceptable.  One of these lengthy discussions was unique as it raised 
a number of issues.  It was also the second time the organization had 
a controversial debate which was related to attendance.

>While of course we can imagine it will, why do we need to anticipate 
>it with extra effort (and distraction) now?

It is better not to have an IETF-wide discussion about geography as 
it will require more effort to reach agreement.  There was, in my 
opinion, two good questions in the message at 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/msg00182.html 
The guidance is not only to the IAOC; it is also to 
companies/organizations which would like to submit the name of a 
venue for consideration.  If a company would like to sponsor a 
meeting in Hawaii, would that be considered as a meeting in North 
America or Asia/Pacific?  The IETF lists Hawaii as within the United 
States.  Although the location is in the United States, it is also 
listed as within the Pacific {1].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf