Re: China

On 8 Apr 2016, at 16:14, Scott Bradner <sob(_at_)sobco(_dot_)com> wrote:
> some on the IAOC wanted to go back to SD for IETF 100 but the facilities were 
> not available 
> at the right time
Ah, I was expecting the plenary drumroll to reveal just this - IETF100 at San 
Diego. 

A shame it couldn't happen, but perhaps an indicator we do need to keep 
planning 3-4 years out.

And for the right venue, we should be able to slide the dates forwards/back a 
week or two. 

Tim

> Scott
>
> > On Apr 8, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Michael Richardson 
> > <mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen(_at_)me(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > > I am sorry to hear that. Our "open and inclusive process" comprises
> > > many participants from China who have traditionally faced harsh and
> > > unpredictable visa problems in North America. In fairness to them, we
> > > held that meeting in Beijing. Note that we did so following an
> > > extensive discussion on the IETF mailing list and after negotiating
> > > the removal of a rather ominous hotel clause, as well as an unfiltered
> > > network in the meeting venue.
> > Yes, and we did this openly, and I don't feel we did the same thing here.
> > And there were still surprises, I'm told.
> >
> > I was very surprised at the announcement for 100.
> > I kinda thought we should go back to San Diego as for IETF 1.
> > (well. Maybe IETF101 should be same as IETF 1... maybe IETF 100 should be
> > same as IETF 0, and be entirely virtual...)
> >
> > (I didn't go because I generally have funds for two IETFs a year,
> > and given the hassle, and my concerns about what I would eat, it was simpler
> > to skip.  I skipped BA for a combination of economic, but primarily family 
> > reasons)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software 
> > Works
> > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-