Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

I think this highlights a gap between mtgvenue (which is producing 
documents that will provide guidance to the IAOC on venue selection, 
typically years in advance of the actual meetings) and the 
practicalities about what happens if the facts on the ground change 
non-trivially in the interim.

For example; from the reporting I'm reading [1], the United States will, 
at the time of the upcoming Chicago meeting, still have in effect an 
executive order that precludes entry of any kind for nationals of seven 
named countries. Looking back over the past several IETF meetings, I see 
at least 18 distinct attendees (12 from Iran, 2 from Libya, 2 from 
Somalia, 1 from Yemen, and 1 from Sudan) who would be barred from 
attending the Chicago meeting in person.

I think the broader question that Dave is asking -- and this lies way 
outside the mtgvenue charter -- is: when this happens, is there any 
specific action that any I* body should take? It's not clear to me that 
there are any practical actions to take: it's obviously impractical to 
cancel or move the meeting with this much notice.

Which is to say: I don't think there's anything to do, but I think it's 
a valid question to ask, and I think the general IETF list is as 
appropriate a venue as any other.

/a

____
[1] e.g., 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html

On 1/27/17 13:40, Warren Kumari wrote:
> If only we had some sort of a list or working group where things like
> meeting venues could be discussed.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mtgvenue/documents/
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/maillist.html
>
> W
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Dave Burstein <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Folks
>>
>> The IETF has generally steered clear of political entanglements, which I
>> think wise. Nonetheless, I raise the question of whether we should respond
>> to the proposed U.S. ban on nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
>> Syria, Yemen.
>>
>> Scott Aaronson reports one of his MIT students will probably have to leave
>> if he can't get his visa removed. We all know how many Iranians are
>> world-class technologists, including in computer science and electrical
>> engineering.
>>
>> I hope many from outside the United States speak up. The issues around Trump
>> make it hard to be objective here.
>>
>> Should we take a stand?
>>
>> If so, should it be symbolic or substantive?
>>
>> Symbolic actions could include:
>>
>> A resolution
>> Establishing remote hubs for our meetings in Iran and one of the Arabic
>> speaking countries. ISOC has funded remote hubs.
>> Outreach in Farsi and Arabic to show that whatever actions the government
>> takes, the IETF welcomes participation. This could be as simple as Jari
>> Arkko writing a letter to the editor of the leading newspapers with an
>> invitation for all to join our work.
>>
>> Some might also think that we should move the July 2018 meeting from San
>> Francisco to a location accessible to more of our members, perhaps to Mexico
>> or Canada.
>> ------------
>>
>> As we discuss this, I urge everyone to avoid distracting comments about U.S.
>> politics. We're not going to change many minds here pro or con the new U.S.
>> President.
>>
>> Instead, let's keep the discussion here to how we should respond to a major
>> nation refusing visas to so many of our members.
>>
>> Dave Burstein
>>
>>
>> --
>> Editor, Fast Net News, 5GW News, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
>> Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great,
>> Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
>
>