Re: [Mtgvenue] [admin-discuss] Consultation on IETF Meeting venue assessment

Jay Daley <> Thu, 04 February 2021 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5258D3A174C; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:23:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SAfh2gU4GSxY; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:23:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F7BE3A1749; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:23:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A3C72437-4DD3-4987-8CF6-12C30A71A936"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 08:23:26 +1300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Lou Berger <>, Eliot Lear <>, Dhruv Dhody <>, "" <>, "" <>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] [admin-discuss] Consultation on IETF Meeting venue assessment
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:23:31 -0000

> On 5/02/2021, at 8:13 AM, Livingood, Jason <> wrote:
>> Do we take it that this means that if all the hotels support VPN access and the venue itself supports unfiltered access (i.e. no need to use a VPN for access) then that is acceptable, even if VPNs are blocked or are illegal outside of the hotels and venue?
> In the past IIRC this focused on the type of access available in the venue (and possibly the primary hotel as well but IMO as long as a VPN can be used it is a bit moot). Thus as long as we had unfiltered access in Beijing at IETF-79 it was fine - despite the fact that the average local citizen may have had filters or other restrictions. I also think if we focus on whether local citizens have unfettered access this will end up being a slippery slope - as many governments (even in the UK and EU) have localized content / access restrictions - so where to draw the line will always be a matter of debate.

I’m trying to specifically pin down what is acceptable with regards to the overflow hotels not the venue, as I think we have clarity on the latter.  For overflow hotels, I believe we’ve narrowed down to VPN access not any other filtering, and the question of how we assess that remotely, if that is even possible.   


> JL
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list

Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director