Hi Barry, Thanks a lot for your inputs. I think this point is extremely important and we really need a clear multi-national position on that, not just from a lot of participants of a few countries, unless we want to restrict the participation of only nationals from those countries. See my reply, below-in line. Regards, Jordi > De: Barry Leiba <leiba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Responder a: "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Fecha: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:30:34 -0500 > Para: "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > CC: <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Asunto: Re: I-D > ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt > >> So, could people please review it for errors and omissions? > > My biggest concern is in sections "2.3. Freedom of Participation" > and "2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas", in that I'm not sure > how realistic they are. Without getting overly into politics (let's > please not), I think they reflect a somewhat naïve view of some of > the political realities. Specifically... > > Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could > be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for > all participants. > > The United States certainly cannot be assumed to allow ALL attendees > entry. It's well known that we have lists of people we won't allow > in, and lest we think that's limited to the sort of nasty folk who > wouldn't be attending the IETF anyway, I'll point out that a plane > carrying Yusuf Islam -- the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens -- > was landed in Maine so that the singer could be removed and sent home > before the plane continued to New York. Individuals do get on these > lists unreasonably, or by mistake. It think is fine, of course, don't having as mandatory for a country to allow to come for an IETF meeting somebody that did something which is against the law (being a criminal, terrorist or whatever), but not just because he/she has this or that way of thinking or is national for this or that country (not to name political, religious, sexual or any kind opinions). IETF is an open institution, which don't care about good or bad political decisions of countries or institutions; we just care about the way we want the world to do technology to be interoperable for all. Consequently, if a country don't allow some of us, some contributors or people willing to contribute, to attend our meetings, that country is against our goals, and is not good for IETF and is then not good for hosting an IETF meeting. I also understand, and that's the complete feeling behind the document, that we may have no other alternative that hosting the meeting in such country, but that may be the consequence of not having a better venue, or having venues which are even more restrictive for a bigger group of contributors or possible contributors. The consequence for the IAD from the reading of this document in this regards, should be like making sure that if better opportunities are available, are actually used. If the result is that less meetings are being hosted in certain countries, that's perfectly fair, because the overall participation will be wider. If some contributors don't wish to go to other countries, that's a personal decision and could show a political view from their side, instead of a real non-political interest in contributing to the work. And as such that is against IETF goals of a wider participation; such type of "pressure" for the IAD to move back to certain countries must never be accepted. > > Ignoring the issue of individuals, whole groups may have difficulty. > The US has a list of "restricted countries", which includes Iran and > North Korea, and a longer list of countries to which exports of software > or technology are controlled (this list includes Russia and China, > for example). There's certainly no guarantee at any time that attendees > from these countries won't have a difficult time getting visas, or might > not be able to get them at all. I'm not saying either that the meetings should be held on those countries either, if they don't respect in a reciprocal way, that anyone can attend the meeting. There are lot's of other options, and if that means including a dozen of countries in the world, even if they are big countries, what is the problem ? As said, anyway, this is only in case we have no other better choices. I think the difference is that I'm not saying "MUST not be held". I'm using a should. > > As to freedom of speech: We could argue about the reality of that > for a while, but even apart from that, our government has made it > clear that it considers those constitutional rights to apply to US > citizens only, and not to foreign nationals who may be visiting. Well, I didn't knew that, and I'm very sorry and sad to heard it, clearly is a terrible statement coming for a government, and that's very negative, in my *very personal* opinion, for the government and the citizens that accept that, and becomes then evident for me that this country is not a good one for IETF. May be this is something also happening in my own country and I didn't knew it, but if that's the case (I doubt it), I don't care and I will also have the same opinion from my *own* country, is not good and is unacceptable. If it was my personal decision, I will even make MUST for that specific case, such as "Meetings MUST NOT be held in countries which don't respect the freedom of speech for foreigners". :-( > > OK, all that said, I don't think the US is a bad country in which to > have IETF meetings. Which is, really, my point: I think the text > needs to be changed to better express the intent, which is that we > want to avoid countries that are unduly restrictive, without trying > to limit things to utopian -- and non-existent -- lands of complete > freedom. As said, I'm not using a MUST, but a SHOULD. As a consequence if there is a better choice for our meetings, we should opt for that one. If it means having less meetings in certain countries, that's perfectly fine and must be that way. > > -- > Barry Leiba (leiba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba > http://www.research.ibm.com/spam > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf