Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-08

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 15:53:56 -0700

Hi Eliot,

There is the following in Section 3.1 of 
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-08:

   "The venue MUST provide unfiltered access to the Internet, to the
    extent permitted by governing laws and regulations."

The sentence could be equated with: The venue MUST provide access to 
the Internet, to the extent permitted by governing laws and 
regulations.  I don't see how access can be described as unfiltered 
when filtering which is done through legal mechanisms.

Section 3.2.1 is about travel barriers and has the following 
criteria: "an overwhelming majority of participants can attend".

  (i)  Is that paragraph about participants or attendees?

  (ii) What is the intent for "overwhelming majority"?  Is that assessed
       by country?

Section 8 is about the privacy considerations of the editor instead 
of privacy considerations in respect to the draft.  Does the IETF 
have a privacy policy, and if so, is it applicable to the choice of venue?

I came across the following: 
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2017-August/012083.html 
Whould such a case have an impact on the choice of venue?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 07:01:50 +0200

Hi S.M.,

With the understanding that LC is well past over...

>    extent permitted by governing laws and regulations."

This text is changed.  Please see preceding discussion.
>
> Section 3.2.1 is about travel barriers and has the following criteria:
> "an overwhelming majority of participants can attend".
>

Participants.  However, I can see some editorial confusion here, and so
I propose to change that to "an overwhelming participants who wish to do
so can attend."
>  (ii) What is the intent for "overwhelming majority"?  Is that assessed
See above.
>
> Section 8 is about the privacy considerations of the editor instead of
> privacy considerations in respect to the draft.  Does the IETF have a
> privacy policy, and if so, is it applicable to the choice of venue?

That section is slated for removal.  Assuredly the IETF DOES have a
privacy policy.

> Whould such a case have an impact on the choice of venue?

Probably.  I suggest that the IAOC would not select such a venue,
because of the uncertainty that would be introduced by such a policy. 
They just moved a meeting for similar reasons without our text.  That's
a good sign.

Eliot

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 23:19:31 -0700

Hi Eliot,
>With the understanding that LC is well past over...

Ok.

>This text is changed.  Please see preceding discussion.

Ok.
>I propose to change that to "an overwhelming participants who wish to do

Ok.

>That section is slated for removal.  Assuredly the IETF DOES have a

I could not find it on the IETF web site or the IAOC web site.  Could 
you please provide a reference to that policy?

>They just moved a meeting for similar reasons without our text.  That's

There question was about which part of the draft would cover such a 
case.  The response is about a decision of the current IAOC in 
response to entry restrictions [1].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg16835.html

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 09:45:22 +0200

Hi,

> you please provide a reference to that policy?

I cannot, but I do recall a lengthy discussion several years ago.

> response to entry restrictions [1].

I have no particular issue with there having been a suggestion of text. 
But I do have an issue with an endless WGLC.

Eliot

---

From: "Olaf Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:25:59 +0200

> I cannot, but I do recall a lengthy discussion several years ago.

https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Website-Privacy-Policy-16Jan15.html

---

From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 19:05:25 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Mtgvenue <[email-masked]> on behalf of S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:32 PM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-08

    Hi Eliot,
    
    Ok.

    Ok.
    
    Ok.

    

As an individual, I believe section 3.2.1 would cover the case in question:

   o Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are likely
      to be such that an overwhelming majority of participants can
      attend.  The term "travel barriers" is to be read broadly by the
      IASA in the context of whether a successful meeting can be had.

Cheers,
Charles
    
    Regards,
    S. Moonesamy

    _______________________________________________
    Mtgvenue mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 18:37:58 -0700

Hi Charles,
>       IASA in the context of whether a successful meeting can be had.

I would read the condition as an event requirement instead of a 
travel requirement.  Section 5.5 would be applicable as the change in 
requirement occurred after the venue selection.  The committee 
discussion would be about whether there is enough time to consult the 
community or to make a judgement call.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:36:50 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 6:39 PM
To: Charles Eckel <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Working Group Last Call on  draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-08

    Hi Charles,
    
    travel requirement. 

Perhaps, but I believe the intent is that such things fall into a broad reading of “travel barriers”.
 
    Section 5.5 would be applicable as the change in 
    requirement occurred after the venue selection.  The committee 
    discussion would be about whether there is enough time to consult the 
    community or to make a judgement call.
    
    Regards,
    S. Moonesamy 

I agree, it seems we have this covered with the current text.

Cheers,
Charles