Stafan,
My apologies... bad example. I was, however, thinking less of
the city area to country area ratio than about the "probably
only one plausible city in the country to hold an IETF-sized
meeting" issue. I should have been more clear about that or
chosen a better example (or, more likely, both).
john
--On Thursday, April 07, 2016 14:35 -0300 Stefan Winter
<stefan(_dot_)winter(_at_)restena(_dot_)lu> wrote:
Hi,
Dave, how would it complicate the negotiation process to
simply say "we are considering the following cities for
future IETFs: does anybody know of an issue that they want
to raise with any of these?" We don't have to say when, or
how definite. It's hard to see how this would cause
problems--can you explain?
Exactly. Singapore may be a special case because it is a
"city=country" one but, other than Luxembourg, there are
relatively few others of those that are likely candidates for
discussion.
Not that it adds particularly much to the discussion at hand,
but would you please note that the country of Luxembourg has
2,586.4 km^2 / 998 sq mi surface, while the city of Luxembourg
is just one out of multiple cities in the country.
If you are looking for area surface matches between a country
and its (only) city, you may rather want to look in the
general direction of the country Monacco and its city Monte
Carlo (different name, same thing - how's that for a special
case!).
(Now waiting for someone from Monacco to correct me about my
ignorance of throwing both into one bowl)