Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] If Xs are blocked by Y, should the IETF respond?

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:35:23 +1300

On 29/01/2017 14:54, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 1/28/17 3:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Which is *exactly* why getting to consensus on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process
>> is the most urgent matter, and it's happening at [email-masked] right now.
> 
> Yes.  We're trying to close out the process document but we're aware
> that conditions have changed and that that's likely to have an impact
> on how the draft will be interpreted.  For better or worse, how we
> move issues along in the IETF is by working on document text, and that's
> what's needed here.  Unfortunately this discussion hasn't led to new
> comments on the draft yet.  I do wish people would give it a read
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/?include_text=1)
> and take comments to the mtgvenue list.

I don't think it changes one word in the draft. It simply makes it clear
that the new model (consulting the community etc.) applies to any country
Y that potentially blocks Xs from entry, or has discriminatory laws when
they arrive. Nothing different if Y==US.

   Brian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:56:25 +0000 (UTC)

>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.

It was brought up in the original message which started this conversation to think of remote hubs for the participants who cannot attend Chicago.    I think that is an urgent topic.   Have I missed messages regarding that?
I know that Dawit Bekele runs an IETF-Africa list.   Should we bring up the topic of remote hubs for those countries on that list?
To address the point that Rich brought up, we may also want to start more remote hubs in the United States.   I believe the one in Boston has meetups all year.   We may want to start more of those in other areas.   I have a feeling that we may very well need to be working with each other closely in the next few years.
Nalini

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:13:37 -0500

[email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> It was brought up in the original message which started this conversation
> to think of remote hubs for the participants who cannot attend Chicago.
> I think that is an urgent topic.

   +1

> Have I missed messages regarding that?

   Probably not... :^(

   But "[email-masked]" isn't a good list to discuss that. May I suggest
"[email-masked]". I can promise to reply to posts there; and I think Alia
would also respond.

   "[email-masked]" is certainly active; but I don't think a
Boston hub would help folks who can't get into the US. :^(

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 06:37:44 +0100

Melinda,

First, thanks for trying to move things along.  I appreciate that this
is a rather charged situation.  I also appreciate Dave's attempts to get
a document out the door so that there is some guidance available to the
IAOC.

I'm responding to your note on MTGVENUE because it is somewhat
responsive to Andrew's review.  He has argued about the meaning of the
word "mandatory", used in context of how the requirements are written,
is muddled between "mandatory to consider" and "we walk away".  You make
the point that most of the problems from IETF 100 stemmed from a portion
of the community being upset by the IAOC's lack of awareness regarding
local issues.  The key point here is that it is important for the IAOC
to *consider* these issues.

Andrew is seeking a simpler decision tree, and further asserts that
there are too many "Mandatorys".  I think the answer to this question is
fundamental: is the point of this document-

 1. to provide a list of criteria that the IAOC must consider, or
 2. to bound the decision process the IAOC uses?

If the answer is (1) then there are no MUSTs, as it were, and we might
as well remove the distinction between mandatory and important.  If the
answer to this question is (2) then Andrew's well considered comments
about the number of "Mandatory"s and his examples lead me to ask whether
or not it would be good for the meetings committee or the IAD to provide
a bit of a retrospective analysis of how this document might have
impacted previous decisions.  Such a review would let us know how big a
hole we have dug for ourselves.

I have no real preference about whether the answer is (1) or (2) but if
it's (2) then we should be quite careful about how we use "Mandatory",
and it may make sense to spend meeting time to go line by line on
those.  In either case, I personally believe that the document would
simplify dramatically if we had clarity on the above question.

Eliot

ps: Andrew mentioned his agenda.  My own agenda is that the IETF be a
global organization and as such not be reduced to meeting in one or a
small number of places...

On 1/30/17 7:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 1/29/17 9:03 PM, Roni Even wrote:
>> We  should be active in selecting meeting venues and if people are
>> banned from traveling to the USA or any other country, it may not be
>> a meeting location based on
>> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process
> One thing that came out of the discussions about IETF 100 is that
> it may be the case that the IAOC meeting committee members may
> simply not be aware of local issues excluding different IETF
> demographics.  This is a serious problem, so one of the goals is to
> make sure that there's a process in place that allows for IETF
> participants to know ahead of time which venues are under
> consideration and to provide feedback to the meetings
> committee.  I believe the situation is not that it's okay
> with the meetings committee to exclude GLBT people, or Israelis,
> or any other group, but that they (for whatever reason) simply
> aren't aware of some of these problems.
>
> Personally, I think we need to reduce our dependence on
> in-person participation and do a better job on remote meetings
> and remote participation.  But that's another topic for another
> mailing list.
>
> Melinda
>