I don't think it was clear at all that some locations were said "almost in jest". What was made clear, however, on page 14 of the transcript, was the instruction to, "Please type [locations] into the chat. No tongue in cheek suggestions, please, because we can’t see or hear your tone when you're typing that in." If that instruction was ignored and our representatives on the call did instead suggest cities not well suited to hosting a meeting such as this one, I'm not sure who they thought they were serving.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: NCPH Intersessional timing

Local Time: 1 December 2016 12:24 AM

UTC Time: 1 December 2016 00:24

In response to who made the suggestions for a location for the CGPH

Intersession, a review of the session Chat transcript

makes it clear that the names were tossed out at the last minute, and

some serious and some almost in jest.

One gets a sense from the overall records of the meeting, that Reykjavik

remains a front runner.

The decision is supposed to be out on Friday, Dec 2nd.

https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Planning+-+Intersessional+2017%3A+Call+details%2C+recordings%2C+transcripts?preview=/63144502/63150134/acchat_ncphpc_291116_.pdf