On 30/01/2017 16:49, Jeffrey Altman wrote: ... > The IETF is an international organization whose members... Not actually. The IETF is not an international organization (I know, because I used to work for one) and it doesn't have members. Legally, it's unclear that it's an organization at all, or in which country it might be based. I also suspect that for some days or weeks, getting a straight answer about the impact on IETF98 attendees may be impossible, but I agree that the IASA should ask. Regards Brian On 30/01/2017 16:49, Jeffrey Altman wrote: > Actually, I think there is something for the I* bodies to do. > They should be contacting the State Department, the Dept of Homeland > Security, and the relevant Congressional representatives to make them > aware of the upcoming meeting and request clarification of the impact > the Executive Action of the POTUS will have on the meeting. This should > be done for same reasons that the sports leagues are inquiring. The > IETF is an international organization whose members could find > themselves in legal jeopardy by attempting to travel as a participant. > > Jeffrey Altman > > > On 1/28/2017 5:35 PM, 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. >> >> 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) >>> >>> >> >