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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

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?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net