Hiya, On 30/01/17 00:43, Jari Arkko wrote: > > But, if I look again at the crystal ball of obvious predictions, > I wouldn’t be surprised if recent trends would at some point > also generate some Internet-related bad policy suggestions. > This is just my 0.02μBTC but I personally would want to > prioritise putting my time to dealing with those situations, > be it about making statements or developing some tech > to help the situation. As we have done in the case of > pervasive monitoring, for instance. But again, just my > personal opinion. And a reasonable one. OTOH, as you noted in the case of pervasive monitoring the IETF did choose to comment upon aspects of that that were relevant to our work. In this case, and as mentioned previously, there is at least one aspect that goes beyond mtgvenue, in that those leaving from one place to come to a meeting might be restricted in returning home. That seems to me to be an order of magnitude more problematic than not being allowed entry. The "order of magnitude" aspect of that is maybe not relevant for IETF discussion, but the "not able to contribute since not able to return home" aspect would surely be, as would the "not able to travel to *any* 'foreign' f2f meetings since not able to return home." Anyway, and also speaking personally, I do think there may be a valid public IETF reaction here, in addition to mtgvenue considerations, which is that we, as with any scientific or technical organisation with participants welcome from all over the globe, depend on the rule of law as it relates to travel being somewhat rational and relatively stable. (*) I think the ACM text could be quite close to something on which we could garner IETF consensus as it mostly says just the above. And yes, you may well be right that there will be more pressing matters on which we may need to consider comment in future. Personally, I think I'd argue that even if that's the case (which we all hope won't turn out true but fear might) then we'll be better off having had some discussion ahead of time as to where we do or do not have IETF consensus for relevant comment being within our scope. Lastly, I'd note that ISTM that mtgvenue is bound to end up with some set of criteria that establish that a venue is unsuitable. The existence of any such set of criteria requires a discussion at to whether or not some specific venue fits the "bad" profile or not. And I can't see that all of that discussion can be on closed lists. That to me means that there will always be a role for a public list where discussion can be had about whether or not venue A has bad property B, where B is relevant to mtgvenue's output. I also cannot see a future where it is out of scope to raise such an issue on this list, so while I fully agree that folks interested here ought subscribe to and get involved in discussion on mtgvenue (as I've just now done:-), there remains a need for openness to discussion of new events and situations on this list, or some other, before, during and after mtgvenue succeeds. My own conclusion is that it seems reasonable that the IETF could reach consensus that an ACM-like statement was reasonable. I'd be interested in opinions on that specific question if folks wanted to offer them. Cheers, S. (*) Even though the USA seem to have diverged from that principle, I think that they are by no means the worst offender in that respect. But there is, for me at least, a real sadness that they've joined such a group.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature