Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?

[Naeem Khademi <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:57 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> + <many>
>
> Three additional comments:
>
> -- Part of the problem with this set of moves is that they are
> sudden and, at least in detail, unanticipated.  There is little
> or nothing a meeting site selection process that is designed
> around working three or five years out can do about countries
> (or their leadership) that suddenly go nuts (including canceling
> existing valid visa and forbidding legal residents from
> returning), acts of war, or even natural disasters that occur,
> effectively, overnight.     For those types of situations, our
> only useful and practical remedies are making remote
> participation work well and smoothly even if forced to scale up
> considerably and thinking through, as a set of contingency
> options, questions of the conditions under which we would cancel
> a meeting entirely and/or convert it to "everyone is remote".
> Even remote hubs are irrelevant unless they have, well in
> advance, arrangements to scale up to accommodate all
> participants from a particular country or category.
>

Just answering this specific additional comment: for the very same reason
IETF will perhaps NEVER hold any meeting in certain countries due to their
unpredictable behavior or sudden policy shifts or unstable political
situation, we could argue that planning of further meetings in the US can
potentially be re-considered by the IETF and the currently-planned meetings
(except Chicago which is too imminent) can be relocated to Europe or
elsewhere (at least for the next 8 years "until we know what's going on
there" ;-).

Naeem


>
> -- For those of us who live and vote in the US, especially in
> so-called "red states", contacting legislative representatives
> and making it clear that damage to US values, companies, and
> ability to do business will cost them votes in the next election
> if they don't take effective action.  That doesn't make
> organizational statements less useful, but, as Dave points out,
> those most responsible seem extremely unlikely to listen.
>
> -- I'm sympathetic to efforts in other countries to, e.g., ban
> or severely constrain contacts and state visits.  Unfortunately,
> if the mentality that seems to pervade the new US administration
> continues, their likely response will be stick their fingers in
> their virtual ears and chant "America First".  This stupid,
> shameful, action really needs to be dealt with on this side of
> what ponds and planned virtual or physical walls can be
> identified.
>
>     john
>
>
> --On Sunday, January 29, 2017 18:37 -0900 Melinda Shore
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > On 1/29/17 4:39 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> The folk at the head of the current administration don't care
> >> about such statements.  But perhaps others who can effect
> >> change might.
> >
> > Right, including our congressional representatives.  There is
> > likely to be a legislative response to what the administration
> > is trying to do, and if industry bodies speak up that can
> > provide them additional support and cover, I think.
> >
> > I do think that issuing both IETF-only and joint statements
> > with other organizations would be a good thing.
> >
> > Melinda
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>