Well, for some countries what Trump said, has already been a fact, for example the prohibition to have computers on board. Is not that the case?
Whatever we want to decide, cancel SF or not, it may highly depend on budget, we like it or not. And that means that we need answers:
If we cancel San Francisco, how much that is going to cost to the IETF for each of two planned meetings?
Can we cancel the actual hotel contract considering the new US situation? If not, has this been considered for new contracts to avoid this problem?
Otherwise there is any reason that can justify the lack of transparency in this?
The problem is so big for this community that I don’t even agree that the IAOC should take the decision. It must be a collective one, especially when the IAOC is demonstrating thru facts that they don’t care that we are discussing and wasting our time without the minimum relevant data, this is disrespectful and even more, not responding to emails since even since years ago, shows lack of education
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Responder a: <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Fecha: jueves, 13 de abril de 2017, 20:37
Para: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Asunto: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
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
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.