Re: IETF attendance

IETF Chair <> Sun, 29 January 2017 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38061297CC for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:46:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8-mXXL2ChiGZ; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:46:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B72CB129784; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: IETF attendance
From: IETF Chair <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:46:51 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: S Moonesamy <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 23:46:54 -0000

Hi SM,

> In case you are not aware, last year, there was an attendance issue for a non-IETF activity as it seems that the Internet Society does not have an OFAC licence to fund the activity which was held outside its home country.

Can you say more (perhaps off-list if you wish), as that
didn’t help me identify the situation in question. Or are
you bringing this up as an example from outside the IETF
that might apply to IETF as well in some other case?

Or is there an angle outside mtgvenue and IETF meeting
attendance here that we should be aware of?

(In general, various actors are under OFAC and other 
regulations limiting what they can do, in all parts of the
world, even if the specific requirements differ. It doesn’t
take much of a crystal ball to say that regulations are
likely to increase in the future.)