No, I don't think this is a meeting venue issue. It is a policy issue and thus a question for the whole IETF.
There are many questions that are completely outside our normal concerns. There are quite a few countries that I am advised I cannot or should not visit for various reasons, including some where IETF meetings have been held in the recent past and I certainly could not visit Iran after some of the things I have said. But those are just politics as usual.
The current Trump administration orders are implementation of campaign pledges that were racist in intent and form. And that makes them very different.
* Can non-US citizens attend the venue?
* Can US Citizens not attend the venue due to retaliation against discriminatory policies?
* Can US permanent residents return to the US after attending the venue?
We could discuss these at great length. Or maybe we could produce a verifiably end to end secure email, chat and document management protocol that is as easy to use as Signal but is not a walled garden model.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If only we had some sort of a list or working group where things like
meeting venues could be discussed.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mtgvenue/documents/
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/ maillist.html
W
--
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Dave Burstein <daveb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Folks
>
> The IETF has generally steered clear of political entanglements, which I
> think wise. Nonetheless, I raise the question of whether we should respond
> to the proposed U.S. ban on nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
> Syria, Yemen.
>
> Scott Aaronson reports one of his MIT students will probably have to leave
> if he can't get his visa removed. We all know how many Iranians are
> world-class technologists, including in computer science and electrical
> engineering.
>
> I hope many from outside the United States speak up. The issues around Trump
> make it hard to be objective here.
>
> Should we take a stand?
>
> If so, should it be symbolic or substantive?
>
> Symbolic actions could include:
>
> A resolution
> Establishing remote hubs for our meetings in Iran and one of the Arabic
> speaking countries. ISOC has funded remote hubs.
> Outreach in Farsi and Arabic to show that whatever actions the government
> takes, the IETF welcomes participation. This could be as simple as Jari
> Arkko writing a letter to the editor of the leading newspapers with an
> invitation for all to join our work.
>
> Some might also think that we should move the July 2018 meeting from San
> Francisco to a location accessible to more of our members, perhaps to Mexico
> or Canada.
> ------------
>
> As we discuss this, I urge everyone to avoid distracting comments about U.S.
> politics. We're not going to change many minds here pro or con the new U.S.
> President.
>
> Instead, let's keep the discussion here to how we should respond to a major
> nation refusing visas to so many of our members.
>
> Dave Burstein
>
>
> --
> Editor, Fast Net News, 5GW News, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
> Author with Jennie Bourne DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great,
> Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
---maf