> On 23 Nov. 2016, at 8:37 pm, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr,
> 
> Reading Bill's description about DC intersessional (when
> I was not involved), seems things have been a bit fluid.
> 
> The last time there was a definite restriction on the number
> participants regardless of funding, but it may have been due to venue
> size only (I recall discussions about negotiation balance from earlier
> events,

	Wasn’t there some remote participation in some previous infer-sessionals? I do not recall them ever being ‘closed’, just with limited travel support (but I did not attend the last one).

> but they may not be relevant anymore). So while the number of
> funded travellers is certainly fixed now, it may be more self-funded
> participants could join, but that's not certain, and won't be until we
> know the venue.

	Obviously, if the location ends up being somewhere where there are already active NCUC members (which would be true for LA or Washington) this is a significant question. 

	David