►
From YouTube: IETF97-MTGVENUE-20161117-0930
Description
MTGVENUE meeting session at IETF97
2016/11/17 0930
A
C
C
You're,
that
is
the
question
good
morning.
Everybody
welcome
to
the
meeting
venue,
working
group
and
so
happy
to
see
so
many
of
you
this
morning
here
the
so.
This
is
Melinda
shore
and
I'm
Jana
soininen,
and
we're
here
to
entertain
you
for
the
next
hour
and
a
half.
I
think
the.
I
would
like
to
remind
you,
of
course
the
note.
Well,
I
don't
know
if
there's
something
patentable
about
this,
but
if
you'd
be
patterned
something
about
this,
you
shouldn't
you
should
tell
about
that.
C
Before
going
to
the
agenda,
I
would
like
to
ask
for
volunteers
for
many
takers
and
jabber
scribe,
I'm
happy
to
volunteer
you
as
well
the
ones
that
I
know,
but
it's
easier
if
you
volunteer
yourselves
any
volunteers
for
minute
takers,
you'll
get
on
jabra.
Thank
you
very
much.
Mini
takers,
I
think
tema
volunteered
for
military
for
this
meeting.
Thank
you
tema
and
the
next
is
that
we
have
been.
We
have
an
agenda
and
this
has
been
post
on
the
on
the
web
page
as
well.
C
We'll
start
with
the
discussion
on
the
meeting
venue
selection
process,
and
then
we
go
to
the
discuss
a
little
bit
above
the
meeting
selection
meeting
venue
selection
policy
as
well,
which
doesn't
hasn't,
had
quite
as
much
discussion
and
progress
as
the
process
yet,
but
we
will
go
to
that
as
well
and
just
to
remind
you
of
the
basically
scope
here.
So
we
are
talking
about
what
are
the
policies
and
processes
of
selecting
venues,
we're
not
talking
about
individual
venues
themselves.
So
let's
not
talk
about
how
good
after
elections,
some
places
in
some
place
isn't.
D
Morning
so
who
here
in
the
room
has
read
the
current
draft,
which
I
believe
is
dash
02,
okay
and
who's
been
tracking
the
email
discussion
as
uninor
jetta
kaz.
It's
been
it's
still
there,
okay,
all
right.
So
this
is
a
concerning
changes
that
will
produce
dash
0
3
next
slide
and
that's
what
we'll
cover
next
slide
all
right.
So
these
are.
These
are
sorted.
D
Recent
issues
might
not
be
a
hundred
percent
of
them,
but
I
tried
to
list
any
of
the
ones
that
seem
substantive
and
so,
for
example,
it
was
an
exchange
that
renewed
this
morning,
concerta
running
the.
Why
are
we
here
paragraph
and
while
that's
important
by
some
measures?
It's
it's
not
the
substance
of
doing
the
work,
which
is
where
the
interesting
controversies
are
and
so
we'll
lock
that
down
and
and
I.
Don't
think,
there's
much
debate
going
on
about
that,
but
that
also
was
a
point
of
activity.
D
The
the
question
of
how
to
give
text
that
provides
useful
guidance
for
satisfying
a
range
of
food
requirements
without
locking
us
away
from
too
many
venues
is
a
an
interesting
balancing
act.
The
current
text
in
the
document
tried
to
navigate
that
there
have
been
more
discussions
going
on
this
week
and
we
think
we
have
what's
actually
a
smaller
proposed
change
that
I
might
have
predicted,
but
nonetheless,
a
proposed
change
and
there's
a
slide
after
this.
D
That
will
go
into
that
and
we
have
some
preliminary
agreement
among
a
few
people
and
I
thank
them
for
their
work
on
that.
But
then
we
want
to
see
whether
it's
comfortable
for
others,
the
political
considerations,
one
current
draft
has
text.
There
was
discussion
about
that
online
I
think
we
navigated
that
to
a
useful
position
and
I'm
touching
these
just
as
a
reminder
in
case
anybody
wants
to
raise
anything
about
them,
but
I
think
that
they
are
settled
issues.
The
numbers,
of
course,
are
the
sections
that
these
concern
on
the
primary
hotel.
D
There
was
a
discussion
about
whether
the
current
model
of
targeting
one-third
of
the
expected
attendance
was
the
right
choice.
This
is
another
balancing
act,
a
smaller
number
lets
us
get
to
more
hotels,
but
it
fills
up
in
microseconds
instead
of
milliseconds
and
a
bigger
number
doesn't
fill
up
as
quickly
but
locks
us
out
of
hotels
where
the
discussion
landed
seems
to
have
been
that
we
stay
with
what
we
have
and
I
haven't.
Seen
that
as
a
controversial
point
on
the
list,
I
thought
the
discussion
was
reasonable
about
it.
D
There's
been
a
little
more
discussion
among
people
here
this
weekend.
It
still
landed
in
the
same
place.
So
if
anybody
wants
to
propose
that
that
be
different,
they
probably
have
an
uphill
battle
to
convince
others
that
it's
a
change
to
make
and
that
will
include
trying
to
explain
the
balancing
act
being
better
in
for
that
alternative.
D
So
I
mentioned.
Why
do
we
need
I
think
that
the
only
thing
pending
is
a
very
small
change
that
was
proposed
this
morning?
It's
not
the
end
of
the
world
if
it's
adopted
and
it's
not
the
end
of
the
world
if
it
isn't
unfiltered
access,
that
was
another
one
that
was
debated,
a
fair
amount
and
where
we
landed
is
the
text.
That's
in
the
draft
now
which
I
think
is
been
fairly
stable
text
for
a
while
it.
D
D
If
it
is
in
fact
tied
to
a
particular
nation,
we
have
a
challenge.
Enforceability
I'll
distinguish
it's
not
on
this
list,
but
there's
a
language
now
and
it's
from
one
particular
place
in
the
current
draft
and
has
been
moved
and
tweaked
a
bit
more
generally
that
we
conform
to
local
laws
and-
and
if
you
think
about
it,
it's
like
well
duh.
D
D
So
I,
I
I'm
not
sure
what
language
we
can
put
in
that
will
work,
but
but
all
it's
in
there
now
says
that
facilities
shall
be
accessible
and,
as
the
onlus
discussion
showed,
that
it's
not
clear
what
we
mean
by
that
and,
more
importantly,
for
the
folks
finding
venues.
It's
not
clear
how
you
test
whether
it
succeeded
to
the
other
piece
to
this.
That
to
me
is
surprising
and
confusing
and
problematic.
E
D
F
The
berry
liebe
in
some
of
the
organizations
I'm
aware
of
there's
a
they
don't
work
on
community
consensus,
driving
the
venue
selection
and
the
venue
selection.
People
have
their
own
mechanisms
and
they
don't
have
it
written
down.
So,
yes,
we're
not
the
only
organization
to
need
to
do
it,
but
many
of
them
don't
have
it
written
down.
We
can
look
at
the
ones
that
do
but.
D
Let
me
stress
my
feeling
is
that
we
need
to
have
some
text
that
gives
useful
guidance
to
the
venue
staff,
the
venue,
selecting
staff,
so
that
when
they
go
to
look
at
a
place,
they
have
something
that
will
let
them
evaluate
reasonably
objectively
and
reasonably
easily,
without
locking
us
out
of
too
many
places.
Lou.
G
Burger
speaking
as
a
co-author,
but
in
by
no
means
an
expert
in
this
field,
so
to
alyssa
comment,
I
did
just
what
you
said
when
we
were
putting
this
draft
together
and
I
went
and
searched
and
I
came
up,
I
found
I
what
I
thought
was
a
really
good
reference
and
I
put
that
in
the
document.
That's
as
good
as
I
could
find
as
a
non-expert.
What
we
haven't
done
is
gone
and
found
an
expert,
and
you
should
have
to
pay
for
them
and
said
lets.
G
E
Alyssa
Cooper
thanks
Lou,
that's
helpful
I
think
one
one
place
that
we
could
just
ask
quite
easily
I,
don't
think
she
would
have
the
answer
herself,
but
we
had
motoko
here
last
time
to
talk
about
sort
of
human
rights
issues
generally
and
I
know
that
they
have
worked
with
some.
You
know
in
the
frame
of
meeting
planning.
E
G
It's
okay
that
I
jumped
the
queue
to
respond.
I,
don't
think
it's
an
issue
of
finding
experts.
There's
a
lot
of
experts
out
there
who
helped
organizations
with
this,
and
we
can
go
to
the
right
export
for
and
ask
for
the
right
problem.
I!
Don't
think
this
is
human
rights
thing
the.
If
its
accessibility
we
go
to
someone
who's,
an
accessibility
expert
who
works
with
international
organizations
and
does
that
for
the
living
we
can
do
that.
This
question
is
whether
we
want
to
pay
for
that.
D
I
Requirements
versus
considerations
I
think
that
entire
matrix
is
completely
hopelessly
confused
and
and
I
don't
understand
how
it's
going
to
provide
guidance
to
the
IOC
when
it
needs
to
make
these
decisions,
because
I
don't
know
how
to
decide
whether
something
on
whether
a
for
instance,
desired
requirement
is
to
be
traded
off
against
an
important
consideration
or
not,
and
I
just
don't
know
how
to
make
this
work.
So
in
fact,
that's
either
the
next
slide
or
the
slide
after
it.
So
thank
you.
Okay,.
I
J
Mary
born
so
that
so
the
document
that
livery
forward
to
right.
Why
is
it
that
we
can't
use
that
as
our
for
instant
guidelines?
Someone
else
hash
through
it
right
that
organization,
right
and
I
would
think
that
we
could
use
those
guidelines
go
to
whoever
you're
trying
to
negotiate
with
and
at
least
understand
the
limitations,
and
let
people
know
ahead
of
time
what
the
limitations
are.
We're
not
going
to
get
perfection
in
any
of
this
right,
but
okay
and.
L
G
The
issue
is,
is
that
we
don't
have
change
control
of
that
document,
so
if
they
make
some
change
that
we
don't
agree
with.
What
does
that
mean?
What
does
that
mean
to
the
community?
So
if
we
make
it
mandatory
to
follow
someone
else's
document,
the
we
may
not
be
right
for
the
community
Luke
got
closer
to
the
mark.
Oh
sorry,
that's
why,
at
the
point
in
was
hey.
K
Andrew
doggone,
oh
I,
the
individual
contributor
and
first
I'll,
give
you
some
background
just
so.
You
know
that
my
next
statement
will
not
be
a
to
misread
I'm
Canadian,
but
I'm
gonna
polish
origin.
I
was
actually
impacted
in
my
life
for
those
political
considerations
and
now
I'm
going
to
say
this,
we
have
to
be
careful
what
we
put
in
guys,
because
in
my
organizations
I
have
people
of
Iranian
descent
who
refused
to
go
to
us
as
well
because
of
how
they
were
treated
at
the
border.
Sorry.
K
I'm
trying
lag
because
I'm,
because
it's
a
slippery
slope
instead
of
doing
that,
we
should
we
should
we
can
put
things
in
our
document
that
represent
what
we
say.
We
want
to
come
here
and
be
able
to
say
without
any
limitations
on
any
topic,
thats
related
to
our
work.
That
also
includes
privacy,
censorship.
Things
like
that,
we
should
be
able
to
come
here
and
have
a
free
internet
access
to
anywhere.
We
want
to
have
it
accessed.
K
K
D
So
the
working
group
mailing
list
had
a
discussion
in
this
realm
and
landed
on
some
language.
If,
if
anyone
thinks
the
language
is
not
acceptable,
they
should
raise
that
again
on
the
mailing
list.
The
second
piece
to
this,
the
operational
piece
is
that
one
of
the
purposes
behind
vetting
cities
or
through
the
the
early
announcement
of
cities
that
are
not
being
looked
at
immediately
for
choice,
but
rather
for
being
possible
for
choice
at
some
unknown
point
in
the
future.
D
One
of
the
reasons
to
do
that
is
to
avoid
our
having
to
specify
criteria
and
leave
that
choice
up
to
the
community,
so
it
it
the
range
of
things
that
you're
talking
about.
If
the
community
says
for
this
fort
for
the
concerns
of
the
ietf
community,
this
venue
is
not
satisfactory
in
those
regards,
then
we
don't
go
there.
M
Hi
Jason
living
good,
quick
comment
about
accessibility,
I,
think
that
what
you
mean
is
wheelchair
accessible
and,
if
that's
the
case,
why
not
just
say
wheelchair
accessible
and
be
done
with
it?
I
think
that
you
know
we
tend
to
in
the
ITF
act
in
a
way
that's
sort
of
like
waterfall
software
development.
This
documents
got
to
be
perfect
and
we
can't
ship
it
until
it's
done.
I
would
suggest,
keep
it
simple,
get
something
in
there
and
updated
over
time.
M
You
know
once
a
year
or
something
like
this
as
we
learn
from
how
this
stuff
is
applied
and
I
would
say
in
terms
of
external
references
if
we're
concerned
that
some
group
might
update
it.
If
they
do
update
a
first
question
is:
have
they
ever
updated.
If
this
is
just
a
theoretical
question,
we
love
rattling
on
theoretical
questions,
but
if
they
actually
update
it
in
the
future,
then
update
the
document
or
something
or
pull
in
all
their
requirements,
incite
them
by
in
some
other
way,
but
I
think
keep
it
simple.
D
J
Mary
Barnes
back
again
so
on
the
following
back
up
on
the
latest
thing
about
the
document
changing
relating
to
Jason's
point
to
me.
That
document
is
way
better
than
nothing
at
all
and
just
saying
wheelchair
accessibility
right
is
part
of
it.
There
is
more
there,
so
I
can
understand
that
document
may
change
right.
But
to
me
it's
a
good
starting
point
and
again
we're
not
going
to
get
perfection
right.
N
L
John
Levine
I
think
I
want
to
say
more
or
less
with
jason
said
I
mean
looking
at
these
accessibility
documents.
They
have
long
lists
of
criteria,
some
of
which
seem
more
relevant
to
us
than
others
mean,
for
example,
they
have
all
sorts
of
stuff
about
accessibility,
purple,
I'm
people
we
have
one.
We
have
at
least
one
regular
attendee
why'd.
You
know,
on
the
other
hand,
this
they
have.
A
criteria
like
elevators
must
have
blindly
must
have
Braille
labels,
okay
and
I'm.
Thinking
we
go
to
Taiwan
and
it
happens.
L
The
Taiwanese
Braille
is
completely
unrelated
to
to
American
Braille.
So
my
suggestion
would
be
that
the
wording
would,
it
might
be
useful
to
say,
here's
a
bunch
of
accessibility
guidelines
to
look
at
and
the
I
aoc
should
consider
the
accessibility
of
the
proposed
venue
in
the
country.
Basically
considering
we
expect
to
attend.
It
probably
means
that
wheelchair
accessibility
at
with
the
people
who
come
now
is
the
issue.
D
Let
me
let
me
test
something,
and
that
is
to
have
two
bullets
to
two
requirements.
One
is
that
along
the
lines
of
the
the
meeting
facility
and
the
hotel
shall
have
good
wheelchair
access
to
common
resources
and
rooms
and
that's
mandatory
and
then
a
additional
accessibility
is
to
be
desired
and
cite
the
document
that
Lou
has
in
mind
and
I'm,
not
that
we
don't
make
decisions
at
ITF
meetings
and
so
I'm
just
going
to
ask
whether
people
think
that's
a
reasonable
approach
for
resolving
this.
C
K
G
Berger
is
actually
coming
up
to
basically
say
it.
You
said
it
better.
I
fully
support
that
that
position.
I
think
it's
it's
very
workable
from
the
the
concerns
related
to
referencing,
an
external
document,
and
I
think
it's
as
good
as
we
can
get
with
with
without
bringing
such
a
document
into
our
domain,
and
we
could
do
that,
but
we
should
recognize
that
there's
time
and
expense
and
all
of
our
time
involved
in
that.
So
I
think
it's
as
good
as
we
can
get
so
I
really
support
that
unless.
G
K
Andrew
dog,
unless
you're
going
to
be
reopening
this
document
early.
Why
not
just
say
that
you
know
every
now
and
then
we
go
to
meeting
selections,
we're
going
to
poke
the
community
based
on
the
criteria
in
that
document
to
actually
realize,
because
today
there
may
be
a
wheelchair
tomorrow,
maybe
something
else
we're
not
going
to
put
in
today
so
poke
community
in
advance
with
criteria
which
are
important,
and
then
we
will
know
yeah
and
then,
and
then
this
when
we
select
venues
we
can
take
a
you
know
relatively
up-to-date.
K
D
Any
other
discussion
or
comments
on
the
slide
items
on
the
slide
next
slide
that
all
right.
So
this
is
this
is
where
the
discussions
on
food
texts
have
landed.
The
first
two
bullets
are
in
the
current
draft.
I
believe
this
is
correct.
This
is
0.
This
will
go
back
a
slide,
I
put
it
there.
I
did
put
it
here.
D
No
I
didn't
alright,
so
search
for
food.
It's
in
the
draft
on
food,
sorry
and
where
the
discussions
landed
seems
to
be
satisfied
with
the
third
bullet.
I
will
mention
that
one
reading
of
the
the
proposed
change
produced
a
comment,
but
this
is
redundant
with
the
first
two
bullets
and
that
led
to
pointing
out
that
the
purpose
of
the
third
bullet
is
to
integrate
the
first
two
bullets
in
a
particular
way,
so
the
first
to
billets
end
up
serving
as
a
foundation
notice.
The
second
bullet
is
not
mandatory,
whereas
for
the
third
it
is.
O
D
Thank
you
so
much
and
I
should
I
should
call
out
Laura
on
the
staff
side
and
Mariana
on
the
food
side
for
for
their
considerable
contributions
over
the
course
of
this
weekend
last
weekend,
trying
to
find
this
balance,
yay,
okay,
other
issues,
so
this
is
the
first
bullet-
is
the
one
that
Andrew
raised.
They
could
easily
take
all
the
remaining
time.
Unfortunately,
it's
also
the
foundation.
The
other
bullets
aren't
useful
until
we
figure
this
out.
The
current
document
has
a
model
that
I
don't
really
understand
very
well.
D
I
know
it
was
motivated
by
a
conceptual
framework.
It's
just
I,
never
fully
understood
it
and
there
are
four
labels,
and
so
that's
the
first
sub
bullet
and
in
trying
to
figure
out
and
there's
been
some
discussion
on
the
list.
I
think
that
the
discussion
has
tended
to
divide
between
keeping
the
four
labels
and
figuring
them
out
better
versus
going
to
two
labels
of
mandatory
and
optional,
where
I
personally
landed
is
in
between
and
the
explanation
I'll
give
for.
D
O
I'm
Bob
in
didn't
ya,
so
I
finished
reading
this
and
my
reaction
was
for
was
too
many
because
I
mean
I've,
been
on
I'm
on
the
meeting
committee
and
but
didn't
on
the
IOC
and
I
like
it's
important.
It
seems
to
me
important,
is
more
important
than
desired,
and
so
I
found
this
very
ambiguous.
I
think
three
would
be
better
and
not
exactly
sure
what
the
words
are
the
and
then
they
also
later
in
the
document
in
3.2.
It
also
uses
word
an
optimum,
an
optimal
facility
that
that
shouldn't
be
here.
O
P
Q
My
overall
comet
is
that
I
think
we
spend
too
much
time
on
the
word
in
the
meaning
of
it.
This
document
is
guidance
to
the
IOC.
It's
not
a
piece
of
code,
that's
going
to
execute
with
instead
else's
and
if
it
doesn't
execute
properly
code
crashes,
we
have
intelligent
people
on
the
IOC,
we
put
them
there.
We
selected
the
through
the
gong
com.
Let
them
do
their
job
and
give
them
the
guidance
they
need
with
some
words
but
they're
intelligent
people.
They
can
interpret
the
words
and
go
do
their
job.
So.
D
K
Got
Singapore
because
within
educate
people
and
they
made
their
own
calculon's
hey
with
yeah
we
got
Singapore
will
be
really
sweet
and
rude
Organa,
because
we
didn't
educate
people
and
we
get
drunk
arguments
because
of
that.
I
agree
with
your
three
statements:
I
think:
if
we
want
to
have
a
trade
of
the
category
which
is
I
think
important,
it
probably
would
probably
should
a
you
know,
minimum
percentage
of
trade
of
things
that
we
do
want
to
satisfy.
K
So
let's
say:
if
you
have
10
of
those
trade
of
Saturday
categories,
you
know
you
at
least
need
to
meet
six
or
whatever
the
number
is.
You
guys
discuss
it,
otherwise
the
trade
of
really
becomes
nice,
so
it
should
have
a
little
it's
important
for
that.
But
I
think
he
needs
a
little
bit
of
extra
weight.
I
I
I
The
reason
that
I
think
that
is
that,
fundamentally,
what
you're
always
doing
for
any
venue
is
deciding
among
a
whole
bunch
of
trades
and
what
we
were
suggesting
was
that
we
needed
instead
a
rank
ordering
of
the
things
that
you
were
going
to
trade,
the
ones
that
were
the
important
stuff
and
then
everything
else,
and
that
was
just
a
random
list
of
stuff,
and
you
know
we
were
going
to
have
to
depend
on
judgment
now.
I
appreciate
Dave,
that
your
view
is
that
this
is
hopelessly
naive.
My
view
is
that
then
I
think.
P
P
A
I
My
view
is
that
is
that
the
categories
here
are
sufficiently
bad,
that
what
will
happen
is
we
will
end
up
in
in
on
the
two
battles
1,
when
producing
this
document,
the
community
will
rat
hole
on
on
the
categories
and
then,
secondly,
I
every
future
decision,
which
you
know
cuts
across
these
things,
people
a
rat
hole
on.
You
know
whether
the
categories
were
applied
correctly,
which
of
course,
is
your
objection
to
the
rank
ordering
instead
on
so
so.
I
M
That
Jason,
looking
good
I,
agree
with
Andrew
that
it's
it's
hard
when
selecting
a
venue
you're,
always
looking
at
lots
of
different
trade-offs
and
it's
a
complicated
decision.
As
Glenn
said,
you
can't
program
it
and
if
we're
not
careful
we'll
end
up
with
you
know
one
or
two
venues
that
perfectly
meet
the
requirements
and
that's
the
only
place
we'll
go
around
the
world
so
and
I
think
preserving
some
ability
for
the
folks
working
on
selection
to
have
or
to
exercise
judgment
based
on
lots
of
different
criteria
and
make
that
you
know
more
complicated.
D
Should
I
should
mention
that
I
mentioned
it
earlier
I'll
stress
it
here.
A
mess
staff
have
been
heavily
involved
in
this
discussion
and
have.
I
am
deeply
appreciative
that
they
have
pushed
quite
hard
when
something
seemed
impractical.
They've
been
encouraged
and
have
I
suspect,
even
if
they
hadn't
been
encouraged,
have
been
very
diligent
about
making
sure
we
hear
when
something
sounds
impractical,
so
the
worst
case
scenario
that
you're
describing
I
think
we
have
a
safety
check
against
that
during
this
development
process.
F
This
is
barrett
liebe,
a
couple
of
comments
that
built
up
as
I
was
in
the
queue
foot
with
in
response
to
glen.
I
completely
agree
that
we
don't
want
to
try
to
make
a
computer
program
for
this,
but
we've
had
someone
bob
from
the
meeting
committee
say
that
the
wording
of
our
choices
needs
to
be
clearer
to
the
committee.
So,
yes,
it
does
matter
how
we
describe
the
different
trade-offs.
Where
we're
talking
about
I
I
disagree
with
Andrew
in
the
ordered
list,
part
I
think
dave
has
separated
it
out
very
nicely.
F
There's
a
set
of
things
that,
if
any
one
of
them
fails,
we
will
not
have
a
meeting
and
that's
the
mandatory.
The
trade-off
part
is
simply
I.
Can't
I
can't
make
an
ordered
list
of
those
that
is
always
going
to
be
right.
Sometimes
a
failure
or
partial
failure
of
something
we
might
ordinarily
consider
to
be
more
important
trades
off
against
everything
else
being
absolutely
perfect,
and
I
think
the
by
putting
this
as
just
a
set
of
things
that
can
be
traded
off
and
leaving
it
to
the
intelligence
of
the
meeting
committee
is
the
right
thing.
R
Leslie
daigle
acknowledging
I
am
ioc
chair,
but
not
speaking
as
ioc
chair.
I
think
that
it's
a
pretty
important
to
understand
what
it
is
that
we're
trying
to
do.
I
mean
I,
certainly
resonate
with
Glenn's
comments
that
this
we're
not
building
an
algorithm
at
least
not
one
that
you
we're
not.
We
are
not
going
to
run
code.
I
think
you'll,
be
optimistic
to
think
we
would
find
even
one
meeting
venue
that
would
perfectly
need
all
of
our
requirements.
R
So,
given
that
I
think
what
we're
actually
trying
to
do
is
understand
what
it
is.
The
community
expects
so
that
we
can
best
deliver
on
community
expectations
at
any
given
point
in
time,
but
I
think
we
actually
already
have
a
little
bit
of
running
code
about
what
to
do
when
we
have
a
venue
that
is,
it
works
for
a
number
of
criteria,
but
we
know
there
are
perceived
issues
on
another
front
and
I'm,
referring
specifically
to
IETF
101
London
in
it.
R
You
know,
we've
announced
this
week
that
we're
going
to
London,
yes,
the
Metro
hole
for
a
while
and
and
but
but
we've
also
pointed
out.
You
know
we,
we
know
what
some
of
the
issues
were,
and
here
are
how
we're
trying
to
mitigate
them
with
the
differentiated
room
box
that
you
can
identify
whether
want
the
cheaper
rate
or
a
better
room
whatever.
So
all
that
just
sort
of
to
suggest
you
know
maybe
there's
some
running
code
for
as
we
all
go
through
this
learning
process
of.
How
do
we
understand
what
the
requirements
are?
R
C
So
this
young
man
is
high
in
that
can
on
that
last
point
of
changing
conditions
in
this
specially
because
we
not
have
on
ourselves,
but
in
the
world
they
are
changing
conditions
all
the
time,
countries
that
seemed
stable
all
of
a
sudden
or
not
and
things
change
we
were
originally.
We
wanted
to
put
some
language
in
the
text,
basically
looking
at
that.
So
what
do
you?
What
are
a
criteria
where
you
start
to
kind
of,
like
think
about
triggering
a
change
that
if
an
venue
is
any,
is
not
anymore
so
acceptable?
C
And
what
do
you
do
about
that?
And
there
was
in
the
last
meeting
there
was
discussion
also
about
what,
if
we
have
to
cancel
a
meeting
completely
undo
it
virtually
and
so
on.
I
think
that
in
the
handover
from
Fred
to
Dave,
we
have
a
little
bit
forgotten
about
that
and
we
most
probably
have
to
come
back
to
that
and
see
how
we
solve
those
issues
and
how
we
can
guidance
on
when
what
are
kind
of
like
people
dole
moments
in
history
which
make
us
change,
might
change
venue
or
even
cancel
a
meeting.
D
For
for
reference
on
that
topic,
it
doesn't
it
doesn't
answer
the
point
that
you
own
is
raising,
but
the
document
where
it
has
a
discussion
of
the
the
sequence,
the
actual
operation
of
the
venue.
There
is
a
final
check
about
three
months
out.
That's
probably
going
to
be
a
significant
point
for
resolving
this.
R
So,
just
to
follow
the
point,
misleading
go
again,
I
think
it's
important
actually
to
not
try
to
make
this
document
deal
with
that
problem
as
well.
Just
from
the
standpoint
of
modularity.
It
may
be
that
this
working
group
wants
to
tackle
that,
but
I
would
advise
attacking
it
any
separate
document,
because
the
issues
do
get
complex.
R
You
know
once
there
are
contracts
in
place
and
it's
a
whole
different
kettle
of
fish.
Once
you
have
contracts
in
place
once
people
have
tickets
purchased
right,
I
mean
we
actually
did
have
to
look
at
buenos
aires
and
decide
whether
Zeke
was
going
to
be
enough
of
a
threat
there
at
a
point,
when
people
had
already
paid
tickets
that
they
would
not
have
been
able
to
redeem.
So
it's
a
big
problem.
Take
it
somewhere
else.
E
Alyssa
Cooper
so
Barry,
you
said
you
said
something
about
making
a
meeting
venue
decision
which
is
right
and
I
actually
think
that
this
is
not
really
about
like
right
decisions
and
wrong
decisions,
because
I
don't
think
you
could
really
characterize
any
selection
as
as
right
or
wrong.
I
think
the
value
of
this
exercise
is
in
making
the
decisions
justifiable.
E
I,
don't
think
we
can
really
get
around
it,
but
I
think
it
could
have
a
lot
less
than
it
has
now
and
as
it
stands
now,
I
don't
think
it
serves
that
purpose
of
being
able
being
usable
to
justify
a
controversial
decision.
So
that's
part
of
the
reason
why
I
worked
with
Andrew
on
on
the
rank
ordering
frankly
like
if
the
rank
ordering
isn't
the
only
way
to
achieve
that
quality
of
justifiability.
There's
there's
other
ways,
I
think,
but
it
was
just
a
just
one
way
that
we
thought
of
so
it.
E
F
This
is
Barry
and
alyssa.
I
hope
I'm
pretty
sure
you
didn't
mean
what
you
as
strongly
as
I
heard
it
but
I.
If,
if
I
thought,
this
was
all
about
being
able
to
justify
things
after
the
fact
that
basically
covering
ourselves,
I
would
despair.
I'm
I'm
aiming
this
at
actually
giving
useful
advice
to
the
meetings,
committee
and
I
think
that's
where
we
need
to
focus
it
if
a
side
effect
of
that
is,
they
can
say
yeah.
We
did
what
you
told
us
to
do.
D
S
S
So
if
you
don't
want
this
to
be
a
program
code,
then
I
think
you
should
be
extremely
careful
with
the
red
mandatory,
because,
if
I'm
on
my
meetings
committee
or
if
I'm
in
the
community
I
will
expect
mandatory
to
be
fulfilled,
otherwise
probably
people
will
scream
and
rightfully
so
so.
The
use
of
mandatory
should
be
extremely
carefully
and
probably
strongly
discouraged,
because
there
is
a
lot
of
choices
that
might
not
be
possible.
J
Mary
barn
so
I
liked
a
lot
of
what
Alyssa
said
and
I
don't
know
that
she
meant
the
word
justify
so
much
as
make
the
community
aware
of
the
trade-offs
that
the
committee
had
to
make
right,
which
I
think
that's
the
important
thing
the
community
wants
to
know
when
we're
going
to
go
somewhere.
What
we're
going
to
run
into
like
we
know
we're
going
to
London
and
it's
going
to
be
a
Habitrail
maze,
but
we
know
Stephanie
and
the
other
secretary
people
will
help
entertain
us
while
we're
going
through
the
maze,
so
that'll
be
cool.
J
It's
really
awesome.
If
you
weren't
there,
so
anyways
I
think
keeping
things
simpler,
I
think,
is
better.
In
my
first
introduction
to
this
stuff
I
hadn't
read
the
detailed
meeting
venue,
I,
read
the
Andrew
and
alyssa's
and
I
like
that
and
was
very
confused
by
the
meeting
venue
document
initially
so
and
I
think.
The
food
thing
is
a
good
example
right.
When
I
go
there,
I
want
to
know
whether
or
not
there's
a
grocery
store
or
the
secretary.
The
organizers
have
made
sure
that
the
staff
are
aware
of
people
like
me
right
and
I.
T
Hello,
this
is
real
silver.
I
would
first
like
to
say
that
I
think
it's
really
great,
that
we're
still
having
this
discussion
and
that
it's
also
moving
to
a
point
where,
where
it's
getting
more
concrete,
I
would
really
like
to
echo
what
Alyssa
said
and
also
the
previous
speaker,
because
I
think
we
cannot
hard
code.
What
we're
going
to
do
and
having
some
experience
with
Winston's
Human
Rights
impact
assessments
of
of
companies
is
that
we
cannot
say
what
we're
going
to
encounter,
but
it's
very
crucial
that
we
say.
T
Let
me
take
all
these
things
into
account
and
we
document
how
we
came
to
these
choices,
because
we
cannot
say
beforehand
what
is
important.
What
is
going
to
be
important
but
document
that
we're
taking
these
in
things
into
account
and
then
having
a
discussion
into
AC
and
making
I
aoc
and
making
the
justifiable,
so
the
community
can
have
a
discussion
about
it
as
well.
I
think,
is
the
most
essential
part
of
what
we
should
be
doing
here.
So
I
think
that's
really
going
forward.
Well.
D
D
D
D
G
U
Jim
Martin
one
point
to
keep
in
mind
is
that
there
it's
entirely
likely
that
people
who
are
in
the
hospitality
community
will
read
our
document.
They
wanna.
They
would
like
to
see
what
we
want.
I'm
sorry,
which
moon
the
hotel,
the
hospitality
community
should
must
in
May,
doesn't
mean
to
them
what
it
means
to
us
as
a
potential
alternative.
How
about
I
like
the
three?
But
what,
if
it
was
nice
important
in
mandatory
I,
think
that
that
means
something
to
people
who
are
not
in
our
community.
U
D
I
was
going
to
get
to
the
actual
vocabulary:
choice
as
a
second
phase.
Big
end,
on
the
other
hand,
I
think
lose
suggestin
highlights
that
vocabulary
matters
in
this,
and
it's
in
fact
the
reason
that
I
landed
on
thinking.
We
need
different
words
than
may
muston
should
just
we're
actually
using
them
in
some
ways
the
must
and
the
may,
maybe
it
it's
similar
or
the
same.
The
should
is
completely
different,
because
the
concept
of
trade-offs
is
in
part
of
should
the
semantics
of
should.
Is
you
really
have
to?
D
D
N
D
Have
a
note-taker
right,
yeah,
okay,
all
right
so
Jim
suggestion
I'm!
Sorry
repeated
nice
important,
mandatory.
Okay,
the
that
that's
clearly
a
reasonable
suggestion.
There
have
been
several
proposals
that
get
into
that
roughly
that
space
I
will
tell
you
that
in
formulating
this,
and
not
just
for
this.
These
slides
but
leading
up
to
this
I
wanted
words
that
had
a
reasonable,
intuitive
import
and
I
landed
on
trade-off,
because
that
seems
to
be
the
key
semantics
to
that
category.
C
Just
this
unit,
maybe
kind
of
like
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
should
go
through
the
actual
book,
a
blur
you're
more
kind
of
go
through
first
days
that
which
levels
we
have
do
we
have
four.
Do
we
have
three
and
the
ranking
order
discussion?
Then
we
can
debate
them
vocabulary
when
we
know
how
many
levels
we
actually
have.
Okay,.
V
D
Ok,
so
the
semantics
that
I,
so
let
me
this
is
going
to
be
a
little
weird,
because
it's
there's
a
chicken
and
egg
trade
off
pun.
Let's
decide
on
the
number
and
then
decide
on
the
semantic
choices
are
between
four
three
and
two
I
haven't
heard
anybody
lobbying
and,
oh
sorry,
so,
there's
four
three
two
and
one
where
well
the
order.
The
ordering
is
one
there's
one
pool.
G
G
C
Ok,
so
maybe
this
young
mm,
maybe
I,
can
paraphrase
that.
So
basically,
what
he's
saying
is
that
there
wouldn't
be
actually
a
category,
but
the
order
itself
makes
the
category.
So
if
you
have
five,
you
have
a
category
five
categories.
If
you
have
20,
you
have
20
categories
in
the
way.
The
question
is
that
you
don't
have
an
explicit
category
where,
to
put
it
it's
kind
of
what
they've
also
said
this
category
of
one
you
it's
the
order
that
makes
a
difference.
D
I
Of
that
one,
this
is
andrew
sullivan
though,
and
I
I
made
this
point
in
the
jabber
room,
but
I
don't
know
how
it's
not
coming
across,
but
we've
tried
different
ways,
so
I'll
try
again
at
the
mic
on
the
the
other
point,
though,
about
this
is
that
it's
not
just
like
a
different
strategy.
It's
a
completely
different
conception
of
the
job
here,
so
so
the
like
enormous
bucket
list
is
not
allowed
under
the
ordered
list.
I
D
D
But
the
really
essential
point
is
the
stuff
that
gets
traded
off
is
not
a
large
number,
and
the
discussion
for
trading
off
is
actually
difficult
or
or
really
easy,
and
the
piece
that
I
never
got
from
your
draft
and
is
that
if
we
land
on
any
substantial
amount
of
an
ordering
list,
which
is
a
version
of
trading,
we
need
an
algorithm
to
go
with
it.
That
people
understand
and
believe
is
workable
and
I.
Think
we're
missing
that
now,
but.
E
D
Now
the
definition
of
mandatory
was
straightforward,
there's
no
trading
off
there
and
the
the
middle
one
was
the
one
where
there
might
be
trade-offs
and
the
latter
one
doesn't
play
either
because
it's
not
nothing
in
there
is
a
showstopper,
so
I
think
the
answer.
Your
question
is
for
for
that
one
that
I've
just
described.
We
need
an
algorithm
for
the
middle
one,
okay,
but
it's
a
small
category.
Oh
this.
N
Is
Melinda
I
we've
been
having
the
same
discussion
for
quite
some
time
now
and
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
moving
toward
resolution.
So
what
you
know
might
be
helpful
is
to
get
some
feedback
from
other
iao,
see
meaning
committee
participants
on
in
terms
of
what
they
would
actually
find
useful
in
practice.
F
F
In
my
mind,
part
of
it
is
an
audience
of
us,
but
it
will
also
be
seen
by
people
in
the
hospitality
world
and
other
places,
and
things
like
that,
and
we
just
had
omni
r
saying
we
shouldn't
use
our
RC
21,
19
or
21
19
large
language
here.
Has
anyone
done
a
survey
of
what
is?
Is
there
a
common
practice
in
the
hospitality
industry
for
the
terms
or
things
like
that
that
they
expect
in
contracts?
I,
don't
know
I'm
just
asking
that
question.
F
H
F
D
W
Happy
no
one's
gonna
shoot
at
me.
Laura
Nugent
I
just
wanted
to
mention
from
an
operational
perspective.
I
think
two
categories
would
be
the
best
you
have
required,
which
are
not
negotiable
and
you
have
desired,
which
are
ultimately
negotiable.
That'll
be
clear
to
people
that
you're
working
with
in
the
hotel,
etc
industries,
but
also,
from
my
perspective,
operationally
very
clear
as
well
as
I
know
what
is
absolutely
required
and
where
people
can
bring
judgment
in
to
assess
things.
D
So
turns
out
the
reason
that
I'm
I
think
two
would
be
great
if
we
could
do
that.
The
reason
that
I'm
in
favor
of
three
rather
than
two
is
there's
a
separate
negotiation
yep.
You
cited
the
hotel
people
and
for
that
that's
just
fine,
there's
also
the
ITF
community
and
the
point
behind
the
third
category
is
that's
not
a
negotiation
we
decide
what's
in
that
pool
and
after
that
people
don't
get
to
complain.
If
we
don't
satisfy
it.
So
it's
it
helps
our
ability
to
push
back
on
the
community
for
some
set
of
issues.
G
This
is
Lou
burger,
I
actually
found
a
prior
come
up
a
Laura
really
helpful,
because
I
understand
the
need
for
mandatory.
If
you
don't
meet
that
we
don't
go,
I
understand
the
nice.
That
means
it's
a
wish
list
and
it's
important,
because
that's
where
things
that
don't
fit
mandatory
go
and
I
didn't
understand
the
desirable,
but
I
think
she
just
helped.
What
us
understand
what
the
definition
of
desirable
should
be
is
those
are
the
things
that
come
in
to
the
negotiation
and
that's
a
helpful
definition.
G
C
Q
Glenn
Dean
again
I'm
going
to
come
back
to
the
discussion.
I'm
hearing
between
alyssa's
and
document
in
this
document
is,
I
think,
again,
coming
back
to
this
idea
that
we're
trying
to
be
very
detailed
and
create
the
algorithm
for
the
negotiation
and
the
algorithm
for
evaluating.
Like
the
decision.
I
really
think
that's
the
one
direction
I
think
it's
going
to
lead
to.
You
will
never
get
this
done.
Q
This
is
guidance
from
the
community
to
the
meetings
committee
and
the
ioc
they're,
the
ones
that
are
going
to
go,
negotiate
the
contracts,
we're
not
telling
them
how
to
do
that
without
telling
them
the
language
they
need
to
use
in
the
contracts
or
give
them
guidance,
in
our
words,
in
our
opinions
on
what
we,
the
community,
want
in
a
meeting
venue.
It's
that
simple
and
if
we
keep
it
simple
like
that,
and
we
can
tell
there's
things
we
view
as
mandatory.
Q
U
Jim
martin
also
I'm
meetings
committee
as
well,
but
I'm
speaking
as
an
individual.
The
the
truth
here
is
that
I
fear
that
we're
desperately
again
just
echoing
other
people,
trying
to
turn
this
into
an
algorithm
and
really
fundamentally,
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
say
these
are
the
things
we
believe.
This
is
what
we
think
is
important
and
we're
not
trying
to
to
out
to
come
up
with
an
algorithm
or
a
process.
U
We're
trying
to
say
when
you're
doing
your
work
here
are
the
things
that
you
should
keep
in
mind,
and
so,
as
we
as
we
go
through
here
and
break
it
down,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
make
this
too
complicated,
because
otherwise
this
ends
up
largely
being
a
bat
from
somebody
who's
unhappy
with
the
selection
to
say:
hey
you,
you
miss
two
point,
three
point
seven,
and
that
was
a
you
know.
There
were
three
trade-offs
there
and
you
really
should
have
taken
care
of
me.
U
X
Thank
you,
Michael
funny
and
I
want
to
kind
of
jump
back
a
bit
to
Lauren
when
it
comes
to
implementation,
keep
in
mind
who
you
are
negotiating
with
some
of
these
items
listed,
you
can
easily
you're
negotiating
with
a
hotel
and
it's
either
a
yes
or
a
No.
Some
items
listed.
Are
non-negotiable:
you're
not
going
to
negotiate
with
the
country
about
who
gets
access
or
not.
That's
a
negotiation
we're
having
with
the
community
ourselves
the
hotel,
isn't
gonna
open
the
grocery
store.
There
is
a
grocery
store.
We
find
it
sets
a
factory.
X
There
isn't
a
grocery
store.
We
don't
find
it
satisfactory.
That's
an
internal
negotiation
when
it
comes
to
hotels,
it's
fairly
simple!
We
need
this
this
and
this
here
we're
able
to
negotiate
and
take
it
or
leave
it,
and
and
and
and
when
you
start
categorizing
when
you
start
implementing,
keep
in
mind
who
you
are
negotiating
with,
that's
what
it
will
take.
C
Okay,
I
think
it's
time
to
at
least
try
to
do
some
decision-making,
so
I
think
that
what
we
have
is
four
options.
So
category
of
for
category
categories
of
three
categories
of
two,
and
instead
of
that
having
a
relatively
short
ranking
order
and
then
a
category
of
flat
things
associated
with
that,
and
so
let's
try.
This
I
did
not
sure
if
this
is
going
to
work.
But
let's
see.
C
C
O
C
C
F
G
Blue
burger,
whatever
the
end
result
between
this,
it's
really
important
have
documented
their
criteria,
which
are
absolutes
for
the
community.
We
have
to
have
a
document
that
says:
if
this
is
not
met,
we
don't
go
there.
That's
really
important,
whether
the
rest
of
the
stuff,
it's
optimization,
but
that
first
one
we
go
there
Bell
community
we've
done
our
job
wrong.
So.
D
So
so
my
prediction
is
given
how
close
those
two
were?
Is
that
we're
not
going
to
resolve
this
today,
but
we
might
help
a
lot
if
we
can
resolve
it.
That's
great,
but
but
I
suspect
we
won't
and
I
I'm
appreciative
of
Barry
raising
this
point,
which
was
one
of
the
interesting
points
in
a
P
Resnick's
document,
and
that
is
that
one
way
to
pursue
these
kinds
of
impasses
is
to
be
carefully
discuss
the
objections
and
deal
with
those
substantively
and
so,
for
example,
on
the
rank
ordering.
Y
Yaya,
co.
Nha
kyria
me
hats
for
this.
This
comment
that
first
ally.
I
fully
agree
with
Barry's
comment
that
that
is
what
we
have
to
do.
I,
think
it's
not
just
the
objections
but
I'm,
not
totally
convinced
that
that
everybody
completely
understands
what
we
actually
are
talking
about
here.
What
the
implications!
Y
Oh,
it
might
be,
we
sort
of
presenting
a
choice,
but
the
actual
issues
are
someone
else
for
its
to
give
you
an
example
of
that
and
I
mean
I,
been
sort
of
resisting
coming
to
the
microphone
and
providing
my
own
opinions,
but
that's
providing
one
example.
Those
is
really
only
one
example.
So
why
I
liked
atlases
and
Andrews
document
was
study?
It
was
I'm
a
simple
minded.
Man
I
can
only
hold
so
many
things
in
my
head
and
it
really
provided.
Y
You
know
the
clear
things
that
this
is
what
we
have
to
get
right
and
in
a
25
first
things
and-
and
it
was
good
for
that-
and
so
there's
that
and
then
you
another
approach
might
be
more
of
a
lone
release
thing
which
is
no
far
harder
to
keep
in
your
head
and
get
get
correct.
So
it's
not
necessarily
just
on
the
question
of
how
you
label
things
and
whether
you
have
prior
the
order
or
label
might
be
a
little
bit
of
a
mixture
of
other
things
as
well.
Thank
you.
Y
Q
I
mean
may
I
suggest
an
approach
that
might
help
here
and
that
is
to
go
through
the
current
draft
and
pull
it
into
a
single
slide
or
something
they'd
be
sensitive
analyst.
The
break
out
of
this
is:
what's
mandatory?
Bang,
bang,
bang
34
whatever
items
it
is.
This
is
what
would
be
a
trade-off
amount?
Let
people
see
them.
This
would
be
what
would
fall
into
the
nice
category.
If
we
actually
see
what
that
looks
like,
we
actually
may
just
go
yeah
that
feels
right,
I'm,
pretty
good.
With
that.
C
J
No
so
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
my
objection
to
the
rank
ordering
that
document
I
did
provide
feedback
on
that
document
in
that
document,
as
it
is
now
we'll
do
miserable
things
in
terms
of
the
food
requirements
right,
it
will
not
be
satisfied
with
that
one.
So
we'd
have
to
do
a
lot
of
work
on
that
and
I
think
the
more
work
we
did
on
that,
the
more
it
might
start.
Looking
like
the
one
we
have
right
now.
E
Alyssa
Cooper
I
I
kind
of
liked
your
suggestion,
Bob
of
the
merge,
because
I
think
one
of
the
problems
with
the
rank
ordering
document
is
right
now
is
that
you
know
which
items
that
are
strictly
mandatory
is
not
clear,
so
I
think
it
would
be
totally
feasible
to
do
a
mandatory
bucket,
a
trade-off
bucket
that
is
ordered
and
then
another
flat
bucket
below.
So
that
might
might
be
one
approach,
but
just
to
respond
to
to
Glenn's
point,
there's
a
bunch
of
items
in
this
document
which,
for
which
the
label
is
currently
unclear.
E
So
that's
I,
think
part
of
the
issue
is
that
we
couldn't
just
pull
them
all
out
and
and
sort
them
right
now,
because
you
know
Davis
annotated
it
with
like
it's
not
obvious,
which
one
this
should
be
in
and
so
I
think.
That's
actually
part
of
the
difficulty,
as
I
said,
in
particular
with
the
ones
for
which
the
criteria
is
acceptable
to
the
community.
I,
don't
know
how
you
evaluate
that
or
trade
it
off
against
anything
else.
Right
now,.
U
Jim
Martin
to
that
point,
as
well
as
to
Glenn's
point
when
we
do
establish
the
set
of
mandatories,
I
think
is
really
important
that
we
then
go
back
to
something
that
we
did
really
early
in
the
process,
which
is
map
it
against
meetings.
We've
had
in
meetings
that
we've
got
and
make
sure
after
we
say
hey.
These
are
the
mandatory
things
which
of
the
ones
that
we
had
successful
meetings
at.
Wouldn't
we
be
able
to
do
under
the
new
rules,
because,
if
that's
the
case,
we
might
want
to
double
check
our
thoughts.
D
Thank
you
for
suggesting
that
it
was
helpful
when
it
was
done
before
and
it
would.
It
will
be
again.
Yeah
ray
pelletier
I
think
you
know,
take
a
home
on
Melissa
suggestion.
I
think
that's
the
right
way
to
go
mandatory
the
rank
order,
trade-off
and
and
the
flat
list
the
nice
thing
I
think
we
get
in
this.
J
F
C
C
O
D
D
A
fair
amount
of
what
I
hope
is
cleanup
work.
It
certainly
meant
to
be,
and
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
put
everything
into
a
single
pool
because
there's
some
other
benefits
and
having
sections
for
areas,
but
it
might
be
a
lot
cleaner
for
people
to
understand
of
what
the
choices
are
from
the
most
recent
draft,
I.
O
D
Slide,
oh
yes,
thank
you.
I
know
why
you
want
this
long.
Yes,
all
right!
So
so,
there's
a
speaking
of
process.
The
process
for
the
draft
is
I
will
be
releasing
a
dash
0
3,
which
is
my
best
take
and
I
will
fold
in
what
I
can
from
today
and
from
going
forward.
The
basic
model
is
people
who
are
requesting
changes
need
to
do
that
as
an
editing
directive
and
and
then,
of
course,
people
need
to
support
the
change
that
a
reasonable
summary
lieu
of.
G
Blue
burger
I
think
it's
reasonable,
but
it
loses
its
one.
Nuance
is
discussions
great.
We
should
have
them
we're
not
suggesting
stopping
them,
but
at
the
end
of
the
discussion
we
have
to
understand
what
the
resolution
of
the
discussion
is.
If
it's
going
to
change
the
text,
meaning
after
we
have
a
nice
long
discussion,
we
need
something
that
says:
okay,
this
is
the
text.
That's
going
to
change
based
on
the
discussion.
G
Sorry,
I
put
them
together
these
slides
together,
based
on
a
conversation
we
had
among
the
authors,
including
Laura
Laura.
There
was
a
really
good
point
where
which
came
for
staff,
which
is
we
have
to
make
sure
that
we
give
direction
to
the
professionals,
but
also
allow
the
professionals
to
do
their
job,
and
we've
heard
a
little
bit
about
that
in
the
comments
relative
to
the
IAO,
see
you
know,
let's
let
the
IOC
members
do
their
job,
but
we
as
the
community,
including
the
IOC,
have
to
let
the
professionals
do
their
job
too.
C
I
not
sure
I
completely
understand
the
last
two
slides
but
Dave
I'm
kind
of
like
eager
to
see
what
that
means
in
the
written
text,
then
in
the
next
time.
So
then
we
know
what
we're
talking
about.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
think
that
now
it's
I
hope
that
the
authors
have
co-authors
have
now
enough
guidance
to
go
on
by
this,
and
I
would
like
to
go
to
the
next
topic,
which
Suresh.
Z
Hi,
my
name
is
Suresh,
like
I'm
the
author
of
like
another
document
in
this
working
group,
like
I'm
pretty
sure,
like
most
people
have
not
seen
it
and
because
I
haven't
received
any
comments
on
it
since
the
last
meeting.
So
there's
like
two
possibilities
like
one
of
them
is
it's
all
good
to
go
all
ready
to
go
and
it's
a
bit
doubtful.
So
I
I
really
would
request
like
people
do
read
the
document
and
provide
some
comments.
So
there
was
like
a
round
of
comments
like
before
the
last
meeting
and
I
did
incorporate
them.
Z
But
after
that
it's
been
like
crickets
like
and
next
time
he's
thanks,
so
like
I.
Just
want
to
put
down
like
this
reason
like
why
there's
like
two
documents
at
the
beginning
and
not
one
document,
was
that
this
the
duck,
like
daft
question,
was
supposed
to
be
like
the
high-level
policy
that
doesn't
change
very
frequently
and
like
draft
Baker,
which
is
no
draft
IDF.
What's
the
one
which
specified
the
gory
details
of
things
and
that
like
could
change
like
in
a
shorter
time
period
than
this
like
overall
policy.
Z
So
that's
why
they
were
two
documents.
It's
like
so,
as
I
said,
like
other,
like
discussion,
is
on
the
work
group
document,
which
is
like
very
good
because
I
think
we
need
to
get
that
done,
but
I
just
want
to
figure
out
like
if
there's
anything
for
me
to
do
to
get
this
other
document
done
s
also
the
options.
Are
you
just
like
fold
it
all
in
into
one
document?
That's
not
that's
a
possibility.
Z
Our
work
with,
like
alyssa,
has
document
and
like
Aunt
Rose
document
and
like
mud,
something
in
from
there
are
whatever
the
working
group
wants
to
do,
but
like
it's
not
clear
to
me
what
the
next
steps
are
for
me
to
do
so.
I
just
like
want
to
come
up
here
and
stand
here
like
and
take
the
tomatoes
yeah.
C
So,
just
to
remind
everybody,
so
in
our
charter
we
have
these
two
separate
documents.
One
is
policy
and
one
is
to
the
process
and
the
and
of
course
that
is
our
current
charter:
I'm
sure
that
that
can
be
changed.
If
there's
enough
pressure
to
do
that,
but
just
to
remind
you
in
this
discussion
that
that's
the
original
direction
that
we
took
so
Mary
para.
I
Andrew
Sullivan
I
had
actually
exactly
the
opposite
reaction,
which
is
you're
not
getting
feedback
on
this,
because
it's
ready
last
call
it
and
ship
it.
As
far
as
I
can
tell.
This
is
a
this
is
a
simple
thing,
but
this
is
a
policy
about.
You
know
how
we're
going
to
travel
around
the
world,
not
how
we're
going
to
decide
where
we
go
when
we
go
there.
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,.
D
Tim
Crocker
I'd
like
to
say
one
document
rather
than
two,
and
my
main
reason
is
that
having
two
documents
lets
us
get
divergent
about
what
conforms
to
which
or
what
doesn't
give
enough
practical
guidance.
Whereas
if
it's
in
a
single
document,
we
can
move
towards
convergence
of
the
meaning
of
the
high-level
statements
and
the
low-level
directives.
Okay,.
Y
Y
What
enters
that
I
think
this
this
one's
ready
in,
and
we
actually
agree
on
that
and-
and
we
do
realize
that
there's
lots
of
detail
on
how
we
actually
select
those
places
and
that's
why
we
have
the
other
document.
It's
not
that
this
document
claims
that
we
have
all
that
detail,
but
it's
their
overall
policy.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
Z
S
Z
Answer
you
to
be
as
like,
there's
actually
takes
in
the
draft
like
if
it
actually
talks
about
11
1
star
not
being
like
on
a
calendar
year
basis
right.
So
if
you
have
like
it's,
if
you
have
a
problem
finding
a
venue
like
in
a
year,
the
idea
is
to
balance
it
out
right.
So
that's
the
policy,
so
it's
not
really
flick,
but
it's
something
that
has
to
be
balanced.
I,
hear.
S
You
I
can
imagine
a
process
draft
that
will
make
it
even
within
two
years
or
three
years
quite
difficult,
depending
on
what's
in
the
process
draft
to
fulfill
the
policy
I'm
just
saying
that
from
an
abstract
point,
so
that's
kind
of
thought
by
maybe
both
can
be
useful
in
one,
but
I
really
have
no
strong
opinion.
Just
wanna
get
ready.
W
F
Again,
I
have
an
idea,
Andrew
and
Yali.
What
would
you
think
of,
as
you
say,
cutting
this
one,
sending
it
out
it's
ready
when,
but
also
incorporating
it
into
the
other
document,
and
when
that
document
is
published,
have
it
obsolete
this?
So
we
have
everything
in
one
place.
Yet
Dave
is
shaking
his
head.
G
Z
C
Let's
try
this
so,
let's
hump
for
the
adoption
of
this
document,
that's
working
group
document
how
many
people
think
that
this
document
should
be
working.
The
group
document
at
this
point
mm-hmm
how
many
people
think
it
should
not
I
think
that
gives
us
some
guidance
headed
for
this
point,
at
least
so,
let's
take
it
as
a
group
document
and
I
know.
Of
course
we
have
to
confirm
this
on
the
memories.
Thank
you.
Bob,
like
everything,
has
to
be
confirmed
on
the
mailing
list.
That
is,
let's
put
that
disclaimer
s
in
general.
Okay,
I!