Hi Leslie,
Thanks for the update. One query...
On 13/04/17 00:39, IAOC Chair wrote:
The general comments on meeting in the US played along the same lines
as has been shared on the IETF discussion list: people are variously
for moving all meetings out of the US, or adamantly against, or
somewhere in between, each position supported by good reasons.
I have seen mail to the list that argued for not meeting in the US
within our current planing horizon. Some of that was adamant. (For
clarity: I'd agree with the position that we ought not risk meeting
in the US for a few years, incl. that we ought, if possible, move
ietf-102 on the basis that the we don't have a predictable situation
with the US at the moment and that we ought not plan to meet in any
place that's currently that unpredictable.)
I do not recall the opposite on the list, i.e. someone adamantly
arguing that we ought continue to meet in the US. There were some
mails that I'd say maybe weakly argued for continued US meetings
in the relevant timeframe. But nothing approaching adamant.
Is that my bias in reading the list traffic or did I miss some mail,
or is it possible that the (public) list traffic and (relatively
private) survey responses are less similar that your mail implies?
That last wouldn't be surprising, but I'd hope that in that case
some of the people who filled in the survey who adamantly said we
ought continue to meet in the US would be willing to justify that
on the list. If none were, then I think the IAOC ought consider
that as a relevant input in their decision making. (Not as a
winning argument, but as a relevant thing.)
Thanks,
S.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature