Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

Given the constraint set, can the IAOC post a list of economies
worldwide, that given its current understanding of their social equity
issues, are not likely to be a problem?

I'm not at this stage concerned about the other constraints like
technology, access to airports, hotel size. Just, the new(er)
constraints regarding this specific problem: If we do now have a
ring-fence, I think we need to understand how big the remaining
economy-pool is.

I ask the question this way round, because I suspect its a smaller set
than the other one. If thats not true, then the anti-set is fine.

It would help, if we can also see a mark/count of which of them have
been visited how often in the past.

If its easier, the entire worldwide economy list with a mark for 'not
acceptable on this constraint' and a count of attendance would do it.

cheers

-George

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Ben Campbell <ben(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
> On 24 May 2016, at 9:19, Adam Roach wrote:
>
> > On 5/24/16 08:20, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> > > an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is actually an IETF meeting NOW
> > > for planning purposes.
> >
> >
> > What I'm hearing (here and elsewhere in the thread) is that we have a
> > long-term policy issue that we should address with considerable deliberation
> > and at a pace that respects the gravity of the issue; and that we have an
> > extremely short term "go or no-go" decision that needs to be made now, right
> > now, immediately regarding IETF 100.
> >
> > While there have been a variety of positions put forth on the topic, I
> > think there's good evidence in this conversation that the final, long-term
> > policy that we'll form on this topic would probably, if complete and in
> > place today, rule out Singapore as a potential destination. It's not a
> > foregone conclusion, and I'm not trying to claim anything like consensus.
> > I'm just pointing out that it's a real possibility.
> >
> > From that perspective, it seems that the snap judgement that needs to be
> > made right now can only safely be made by revectoring to a different
> > location. If the situation is as urgent as you portray it to be, it sounds
> > like there's not time for the more protracted course of action you propose,
> > unless going to Singapore is a foregone conclusion and this is merely an
> > exercise in justification.
> I mostly agree with Adam.
>
> I agree that we need to separate the two issues. And by that, I mean
> separate them broadly.
>
> I absolutely agree we need to fix the policy, and that such a fix would
> involve a long-term discussion. It will take time to get things right. But I
> think we also need to take a step back from the IETF100 issue when we have
> the policy discussion. While the IETF100 discussion will be instructive, it
> seems to me that we are in crisis mode. History shows us that crises rarely
> result in good policy.
>
> So let's deal with IETF100 now, with what we do (or will hopefully soon)
> know. I think the fact the crisis is happening suggests in the abstract that
> we should revector this one meeting without worrying too much about setting
> precedents. That may or may not still make sense in the face of more
> concrete information about our options.
>
> Ben.