In article <4619acc8-1ed4-52e8-849b-bfda9de61bb0@xxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >For example, could it result in participants from Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, >North Korea, Sudan or Syria being rejected their registration, and hence >being prevented to participate in IETF meetings? The question of ISOC's location comes up from time to time from people in ISOC chapters. (I presume we all know that the IETF LLC is a subsidiary of ISOC.) There is no bar to people anywhere participating in the IETF by e-mail, since that doesn't involve any transactions or payments to anyone. In the hypothetical case that someone on the sanctions list wanted to register for a meeting, we clearly could not accept payment from her. Possibly it would be OK it we waived the registration fee; that would be a question for lawyers if and when it happened. As far as I know, it never has. >If that were the case, I'm sure that we'd all agree that that would be >inappropriate, discriminatory, oppressive, and ultimately unacceptable. >I hope that that's not even a possibility. The world is not a perfect place. Everything we might do has costs and benefits and the choice of domicile is no different. Every country has its version of OFAC, and there is no place that everyone in the world can visit without trouble. As Woody pointed out, visas for physical meetings are a problem and not just in the U.S. I do know that were ISOC to move out of the US, that would make the .ORG revenue on which ISOC and the IETF depends drop by about 25%. (If you care, ask me privately for details.) That would be a disaster for us. So can we argue about ASN.1 or something else instead? R's, John
