I think this highlights a gap between mtgvenue (which is producing
documents that will provide guidance to the IAOC on venue selection,
typically years in advance of the actual meetings) and the
practicalities about what happens if the facts on the ground change
non-trivially in the interim.
For example; from the reporting I'm reading [1], the United States will,
at the time of the upcoming Chicago meeting, still have in effect an
executive order that precludes entry of any kind for nationals of seven
named countries. Looking back over the past several IETF meetings, I see
at least 18 distinct attendees (12 from Iran, 2 from Libya, 2 from
Somalia, 1 from Yemen, and 1 from Sudan) who would be barred from
attending the Chicago meeting in person.
I think the broader question that Dave is asking -- and this lies way
outside the mtgvenue charter -- is: when this happens, is there any
specific action that any I* body should take? It's not clear to me that
there are any practical actions to take: it's obviously impractical to
cancel or move the meeting with this much notice.
Which is to say: I don't think there's anything to do, but I think it's
a valid question to ask, and I think the general IETF list is as
appropriate a venue as any other.
/a
____
[1] e.g.,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html
On 1/27/17 13:40, Warren Kumari 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)