On 4/12/2017 8:44 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
That's a fair point. I think though that it also puts on onus on any folks who adamantly think we ought continue to meet in the US, to also publicly justify that, given the opposite arguments already voiced on the list.
Does it also put the onus on say the UK and the rest of the EU to gaze into the future and promise that the breakup will be amicable and that there will be no changes in the current passage rules between the two or even between EU members?
As much as you might like to require someone to prove a negative - it's generally understood that proposing that someone do so tends to be more of a political debate trick than anything else.
Looking back in history, immediately after 9/11 - arguably the biggest provocation the US has received during the Internet era - 4 out of the 5 IETF meetings immediately after 9/11 were held in the US under the increased travel scrutiny that we take for granted now and we adapted. The current questions are or need to be: What are the changes and can we adapt.
We have a US President that has made big claims and broad pronouncements - but here's the thing. He's not a dictator and he's bound by strong laws and constitutional requirements that limit his reach. Basing a decision on whether or not to hold meetings in the US based on only what Trump says and does vs what he might say and do vs looking at what actually happens (e.g. travel restrictions held in abeyance due to perceived constitutional violations) seems to be taking counsel of fears rather than counsel of facts.
I would suggest that we not cancel SF and use it to gain FACTS. I would suggest that by the time SF comes around the bulk of changes (if any) will have occurred and we will be able to quantify their impact on the IETF participants in the scope of that meeting and whether future meetings will need to be held elsewhere for a period of time or whether we're able to adapt. I would further suggest that the impact of having one "bad" meeting would be minimal in the broader scheme of things vs not having a consensus and agreement on both the actual problem and the solution to said problem.
Mike