On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 04:35:02PM -0600, Adam Roach wrote: > 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. The facts on the ground are undergoing non-trivial change even as this discussion takes place. Last night, several separate court rulings were issued that impose stays/TROs on this executive order. (One in Brooklyn, NY; one in Alexandria, VA; one in Massachusetts; one in Seattle, WA. There may be more than I'm not aware of yet.) There are likely to be more legal challenges. And based on real-time reports from airports, there is clearly, at his moment, a very serious disconnect between what the executive order says, what the courts are saying, and what's being done to people. Note also that the executive order affects US-based people: if they leave the country (for a meeting or otherwise) they may be barred from re-entry. So it's not just US-based meetings that raise issues. ---rsk