Re: [Mtgvenue] If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 05:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA3F129DFD for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:38:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q1jg8coJpe1h for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:38:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86206129DF9 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:38:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9852; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1485841089; x=1487050689; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=UJgS8hkDl4Zt5aedYFoUyCGraNVtNZlq7e2nj3mRUug=; b=ZynoJNr7Uw9M5GskaCKBp+MLBavkYuisq8YL80IcRe0gDHIvo0IQSLxg vcmV28AnntYd2NUO5EmmifIbXnVmaFfpq+dmXxR3NF4Z8wPH/iS3mIq3W m9DfzsarjFn+Lbrx3HzFRQoQDVueaBefNL0B6GLusEY7tPDGm8j0Vbonu E=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B5AQBUIpBY/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgymBNoQ1iglykHQfkAeDHIIPgg2GIgKCaRgBAgEBAQEBAQFiKIRpAQEBBCNLCxALGCoCAlcGDQgBARCJWasRgiUrgRyJVQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ4PiFAIgmKHT4JfBZtVg2+CA4NKiD+KOIZAkn8fOIEbEwgVFTuGOj+IdwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,313,1477958400"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="650282880"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jan 2017 05:37:45 +0000
Received: from [10.61.104.16] (dhcp-10-61-104-16.cisco.com [10.61.104.16]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0V5bjWT015721; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:45 GMT
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com> <8f5ef9ac-b62b-863a-0a0e-f5d2b329de09@nostrum.com> <20170129134410.GA14422@gsp.org> <4D233FE8-6E84-446F-A8ED-604E4F7EAB99@piuha.net> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD76F98A@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <0dbbec0f-4956-12b6-a068-f674e03a3406@gmail.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <32a5f235-1555-ca28-068c-95b3a16a682d@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 06:37:44 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0dbbec0f-4956-12b6-a068-f674e03a3406@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7j9Fs0FSTaUirda1HkvVWbEHD5TVPKll6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/gGF1OGE1nH2o_yO7_8pjcPe6j6s>
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:38:11 -0000

Melinda,

First, thanks for trying to move things along.  I appreciate that this
is a rather charged situation.  I also appreciate Dave's attempts to get
a document out the door so that there is some guidance available to the
IAOC.

I'm responding to your note on MTGVENUE because it is somewhat
responsive to Andrew's review.  He has argued about the meaning of the
word "mandatory", used in context of how the requirements are written,
is muddled between "mandatory to consider" and "we walk away".  You make
the point that most of the problems from IETF 100 stemmed from a portion
of the community being upset by the IAOC's lack of awareness regarding
local issues.  The key point here is that it is important for the IAOC
to *consider* these issues.

Andrew is seeking a simpler decision tree, and further asserts that
there are too many "Mandatorys".  I think the answer to this question is
fundamental: is the point of this document-

 1. to provide a list of criteria that the IAOC must consider, or
 2. to bound the decision process the IAOC uses?

If the answer is (1) then there are no MUSTs, as it were, and we might
as well remove the distinction between mandatory and important.  If the
answer to this question is (2) then Andrew's well considered comments
about the number of "Mandatory"s and his examples lead me to ask whether
or not it would be good for the meetings committee or the IAD to provide
a bit of a retrospective analysis of how this document might have
impacted previous decisions.  Such a review would let us know how big a
hole we have dug for ourselves.

I have no real preference about whether the answer is (1) or (2) but if
it's (2) then we should be quite careful about how we use "Mandatory",
and it may make sense to spend meeting time to go line by line on
those.  In either case, I personally believe that the document would
simplify dramatically if we had clarity on the above question.

Eliot

ps: Andrew mentioned his agenda.  My own agenda is that the IETF be a
global organization and as such not be reduced to meeting in one or a
small number of places...

On 1/30/17 7:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 1/29/17 9:03 PM, Roni Even wrote:
>> We  should be active in selecting meeting venues and if people are
>> banned from traveling to the USA or any other country, it may not be
>> a meeting location based on
>> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process
> One thing that came out of the discussions about IETF 100 is that
> it may be the case that the IAOC meeting committee members may
> simply not be aware of local issues excluding different IETF
> demographics.  This is a serious problem, so one of the goals is to
> make sure that there's a process in place that allows for IETF
> participants to know ahead of time which venues are under
> consideration and to provide feedback to the meetings
> committee.  I believe the situation is not that it's okay
> with the meetings committee to exclude GLBT people, or Israelis,
> or any other group, but that they (for whatever reason) simply
> aren't aware of some of these problems.
>
> Personally, I think we need to reduce our dependence on
> in-person participation and do a better job on remote meetings
> and remote participation.  But that's another topic for another
> mailing list.
>
> Melinda
>