I was trying not to comment on this thread but frankly, I think it is important
to offer a different perspective regarding the prioritization to consider.
I am not judging adequacy of a particular location. I am sure other locations
may pose problems. I do understand the frustration felt with US locations and I
have seen this problem take place with other standard meetings than IETF (e.g.
OMA in Chicago in August had many delegates (mostly from China but not only
from China) unable to attend also for the same reasons and despite OMA having a
much more formal company level membership based approach...). But reading the
below, I have heard too often attendance #s and sponsorship considerations used
to justify overlooking disenfranchisement, and it is simply not OK...
I think that if we aim at being an open standard organization, the highest
priority must always be to not disenfranchise any IETF participants. While IETF
offer safeguards and other mechanisms (e.g. email discussions) to reflect
different views, being unable to attend meetings can be considered as severely
impairing participation. o knowingly have locations that would prevent the
participation of some should be treated as a major issue as it disenfranchises
and it could be construed as a way to favor certain agendas. Other
considerations like sponsorship, amount of attendees may matter but they are
second order considerations that do not compare to the need to address
disenfranchisement first... In fact a fairer view could be that if IETF can't
address it for a specific meeting, may be IETF should simply not hold the
meeting instead of justifying moving ahead because others can attend... If some
can't attend, none should be given the advantage to attend and have their
agenda
pushed forward. That is imply not OK not matter where, why it happens etc...
I am sure that view may be controversial for some. That's not my intention and
I am not that inclined to argue it further... But I wanted to make sure that if
this discussion is continued, such a point of view is also captured and
documented...
I hope it help.
Thanks
Stephane
-----Original Message-----
From: David Morris [mailto:dwm(_at_)xpasc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:21 PM
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for
2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Dave CROCKER wrote:
It's not a matter of being dragged into politics. (Or at least, it
shouldn't be.)
It's essentially an engineering task of working to maximize the
ability of people to attend IETF meetings, by looking for venues where
visa processing is the least problematic.
That does not mean "no visas" or anything else simplistic, except that
border controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers.
That is a one dimensional view of a multiple dimensional problem. The object
should be to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF meetings. Ignoring
the point made that contextual issues often change between when a meeting is
scheduled and when it actually happens, predictable visa process has to share
the stage with travel costs, perception of personal safety, etc. Finding a
venue with no visa issues may also be a venue where average travel cost is
doubled or more. I submit that is not a solution. Finding a venue with no visa
issues and no local sponsor is not optimal. Etc.
I think it will be much more productive to focus on how to minimize the visa
process instability associated with travel to an already selected venue then to
try and select a venue whose current visa rules are very tolerant.
Having seen this subject many times over the past few years, it is clear to me
that starting the process early to obtain a clear set of procedures from the
venue country and making sure all of the steps are known and in place well in
advance is the best way to mitigate the problem. I suspect that travel industry
professionals know the 3sigma processing time for visa applications to other
countries from their country. Use that expertise to plan timelines for
encouraging attendees to start the process. Etc.
David Morris
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf