Subject: [Mtgvenue] Open issue: legal discrimination based on status/identity

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:41:01 -0900

The "Inclusiveness" item in section 2.1 has received some
discussion but not real resolution.  To try to bring it
to closure I'd like to ask if people feel what's in there
is sufficient to provide guidance to the IAOC 1) in the case
where a country implements an entrance ban on travelers
from particular countries, and 2) in a case like the Singapore
meeting, where there are highly discriminatory laws on the
books that may be loosely enforced.  If you don't feel
it is sufficient to address those cases, please propose
text.  And again, this is to provide guidance to the IAOC.

Thanks,

Melinda

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:42:33 -0800

And to save folk the lookup effort, the -04 text on this is:

> 2.  Venue Selection Objectives
>
> 2.1.  Core Values
>
>    Some IETF values pervade the selection process.  These often are
>    applicable to multiple requirements listed in this document.  They
>    are not limited to the following, but at minimum include:
...
>    Inclusiveness:
>       We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
>       anyone who wants to be involved.
>
>       Every country has limits on who it will permit within its borders.
>       However the IETF seeks to:
>
>       1.  Minimize situations in which onerous entry regulations prevent
>           participants from attending meetings, or failing that to
>           distribute meeting locations such that onerous entry
>           regulations are not always experienced by the same attendees
>
>       2.  Avoid meeting in countries with laws that effectively exclude
>           people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual
>           orientation, national origin, or gender identity

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Laura Nugent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:43:04 -0800

Let’s also keep in mind the practical realities of implementing the guidelines.

Laura

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 13:42, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 08:10:49 +1300

>>           orientation, national origin, or gender identity

I may be repeating myself, but I think this text is both necessary and
sufficient. In particular I support the word "effectively" because it
allows for a pragmatic judgment call by the IAOC.

    Brian

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:11:27 -0800

Hi Dave,
>text.  And again, this is to provide guidance to the IAOC.

The above text is from one of the MTGVENUE Chairs.

And the following text is from a message which was sent to the 
[email-masked] mailing list:

>Instead, let's keep the discussion here to how we should respond to 
>a major nation refusing visas to so many of our members.

I don't think that "many of our members" is a correct description as 
I did not see any IETF 97 attendees from the country which you used 
as an example.  One of the symbolic actions which you suggested 
cannot be funded by ISOC as a license would be required for it to do that.

The IETF could be pushed to take a stand and that will be perceived 
as taking a political position, e.g. see (2).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:50:12 -0900

On 1/27/17 4:11 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> The IETF could be pushed to take a stand and that will be perceived as
> taking a political position, e.g. see (2).

Hi, SM:

This line of argumentation is unhelpful.  The problem we're
trying to solve with respect to venue selection is to establish
policies that define conditions that can or should be met
that allow IETF participants to travel to meetings
without consistently placing undue burdens on some subset.
My sense is that we're close to agreement on what's currently
in the process draft.  If there's a problem with the language
in that document, now's the time to provide feedback and
propose text.

Melinda

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:56:20 -0800

On 1/27/2017 5:50 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> The problem we're

The IAOC has, at least once, chosen to decline from exploring an 
otherwise-very appealing venue that had onerous visa policies, which 
targeted exactly one country's citizens, and which would have affect 
perhaps one IETF attendee at that time.

(A challenge with the constraint to focus on 'attendees' is the desire 
to encourage new attendees, from everywhere.)

I don't know where the IETF should draw the line on selecting venues 
with respect to this kind of concern.  I don't believe it is possible to 
write a clear, precise, adequate rule that covers all such cases.  And 
so, for example, I don't know whether the US's latest action should 
preclude going to US venues.[*]

That's why I'm so fond of merely having the IETF community use its 
aggregate voice during an early city review query.

d/

[*] 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/world/middleeast/trump-visa-muslim-ban.html
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:16:58 -0800

Hi Melinda,
>in that document, now's the time to provide feedback and

There is the following text in the draft:

Based on what I have see, I'd say that the onerous entry are usually 
experienced by the same set of attendees.  There is a set of 
attendees residing in one region of the world who usually don't 
experience an onerous entry.

I suggested to someone on ietf@ to discuss an issue in this Working 
Group.  I doubt that the average participant would be willing to 
discuss about the issue if the discussion is limited to providing 
feedback and proposing text.

There is a thread at 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/msg00473.html and 
some other discussions about "what's political".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy