Re: [Mtgvenue] Open issue: legal discrimination based on status/identity

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,
At 12:41 26-01-2017, Melinda Shore wrote:
>The "Inclusiveness" item in section 2.1 has received some
>discussion but not real resolution.  To try to bring it
>to closure I'd like to ask if people feel what's in there
>is sufficient to provide guidance to the IAOC 1) in the case
>where a country implements an entrance ban on travelers
>from particular countries, and 2) in a case like the Singapore
>meeting, where there are highly discriminatory laws on the
>books that may be loosely enforced.  If you don't feel
>it is sufficient to address those cases, please propose
>text.  And again, this is to provide guidance to the IAOC.

The above text is from one of the MTGVENUE Chairs.

And the following text is from a message which was sent to the 
[e-mail] mailing list:

>Instead, let's keep the discussion here to how we should respond to 
>a major nation refusing visas to so many of our members.

I don't think that "many of our members" is a correct description as 
I did not see any IETF 97 attendees from the country which you used 
as an example.  One of the symbolic actions which you suggested 
cannot be funded by ISOC as a license would be required for it to do that.

The IETF could be pushed to take a stand and that will be perceived 
as taking a political position, e.g. see (2).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy