Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,

> On Oct 29, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 6/22/2016 6:49 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Re-phrasing this as an objective, I would suggest something like:
>> 
>>      We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
>>      anyone who wants to be involved.  Every country has limits on who
>>      it will permit within its borders. Our inclusiveness objectives
>> are:
>> 
>>      (1) to minimize situations in which onerous entry regulations
>> prevent IETF participants from attending meetings, or failing that to
>> distribute meeting locations such that onerous entry regulations are not
>> always experienced by the same attendees;
>> 
>>      (2) to avoid meeting in countries with laws that
>>      effectively exclude people on the basis of race, religion, gender,
>>      sexual orientation, national origin, or gender identity.
> 
> 
> Alissa, et al,
> 
> On re-reading the above for perhaps the third time, the clause beginning "failing that" finally registered with me.
> 
> It means that the IETF is, in fact, willing to go to venues that the IETF deems as having onerous entry regulations.  (What we mean by 'onerous' is a separate matter, and not one I'm suggesting we litigate at the moment.)
> 
> The suggested language strikes me as... onerous.
> 
> Do we really want that as a consensus statement?

My understanding is that a significant number of venues we have used over the last several years have onerous entry regulations for Indian and/or Chinese nationals (and probably other nationalities as well, but those are the two largest IETF participant groups that I know of).

Alissa

> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net