Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hi Ted,
>
> Put more bluntly: there will *always* be some group who is at least
> inconvenienced and at most prohibited from attending a meeting.
>

A commitment to inclusiveness is something that takes work.  If you give up
on it *ab initio *as impossible, it is not a principle, it is window
dressing.  I don't think Fred meant it that way, and I certainly don't.  As
Stephen has pointed out, the Internet we've helped build may be better at
inclusion than any country we could visit.  That should make us proud, but
it cannot also mean we give up on this for or physical meetings while we
have them.

<snip>

> I will tell you that religion has been a problem in the past where
> participants have been unable to eat according to their custom.  For those
> who are devout followers of a faith we have not made every accommodation.
> We probably cannot.
>

I believe this is another case where participation, rather than entry, is
the right criterion to put into a document.  If someone with a religious
dietary practice that requires inspected food cannot have access to that
food for the duration of a meeting, they are effectively barred from
participation even if they are permitted entry.

I had not been aware that this was the case for any of our meetings, but I
agree that it should be a consideration and I hope that it is one where
accommodation can be created.  In the case of a state which prevented the
use of such inspections, I would expect it to be "militated against", in
Fred's terms.


Thanks again for your thought on this,

Ted