Subject: Re: [Venue-selection] IAOC seeking input on possible IETF meeting cities

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:28:48 -0400

Hi IAOC,

I realize I'm way past the deadline here, but here's some feedback anyway:

1. With regard to currently scheduled cities: I am not aware of problems
with the cities listed.

2. With regard to the new cities:

As far as I know, Bangkok, Madrid, and Sydney are all fairly standard
business centers, and should be fine for an IETF meeting.  (Assuming no
further political unrest, in Thailand especially.)

I'm not familiar with Daejeon.  Looking at what's available on the
Internet, it looks like a pain to get to, with most routes going through
Seoul anyway.  Unless there's some other compelling reason to have a
meeting here, it seems more sensible just to focus on Seoul again.

Hong Kong is a major business and transportation center, but I would be
cautious of similar issues to those we faced with the Beijing meeting in
terms of intensive security, surveillance, and open Internet access.  Macau
would raise the same concerns. (To be clear, I do not know if these are
issues, but would like for the IAOC to verify if they consider these
locations.).

Macau also has the disadvantage of mainly being a destination for tourism
and gambling, vs. business concerns.  I'm concerned that this could cause
some participants trouble in getting approvals, and in general, I don't
think the IETF should get into the habit of focusing on such places even if
they have abundant meeting space.  (I would have the same concerns about
Las Vegas.)

Hope this helps,
--Richard

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:35 AM, IAOC Chair <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The IAOC remains committed to soliciting input on future IETF meeting
> locations.  While we await updated community guidelines for meeting
> selection as an outcome of the MTGVENUE discussion, we also need to be able
> to move forward with meeting planning future years.
>
> With this mail, we are soliciting input on a broad list of potential IETF
> locations.  Our intention is to identify the most promising sites and aim
> to keep our meeting planning scoped to those cities for now.
>
> First, we would like to first confirm whether people perceive any reasons
> we could not have a successful meeting in any of the cities we have visited
> in the last 3 years, or for which we currently have announced meetings in
> the coming years (EXCEPT for Singapore).
>         . http://www.ietf.org/meeting/past.html (IETF 86 and onward)
>         . http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html
>
> Please send input to [email-masked].  It will help the review
> process if the Subject line had the name of the city first, Subject: <city>.
>
> As there are some cities on that list for which we already have contract
> opportunities, city-specific input would be most helpful if received by
> June 28, 2016.
>
>
> Second, we would like feedback on some of the new cities we have had under
> consideration more generally.  We seek community input on reasons we could
> not have a successful meeting in any of the following cities, or of any
> limits to attendee accessibility or inclusiveness that should be considered:
>
> Bangkok
> Daejeon
> Hong Kong
> Macau
> Madrid
> Sydney
>
> Again, please send input to [email-masked].  It will help the
> review process if the Subject line had the name of the city first, Subject:
> <city>.   For these cities, input would be most helpful if received by July
> 15, 2016.
>
> As a reminder, [email-masked] is a dropbox e-mail address:  its
> archive is publicly visible, but subscription is not available.
>
> Thanks,
> Leslie, for the IAOC.
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
> [email-masked]
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>