They are certainly points to be taken seriously, IMHO.
In fact, I'd be interested in hearing from people who have
been unable to travel to IETF meetings due to visa refusals.
If people who have had this problem write to me privately,
I will anonymize and summarize the data.
Brian
Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I can agree with SHOULD and SHOULD NOT, the only problem i had in
writing it that way is i could not meet the specification requirement
for specifying the conditions under which the requirement would not
apply. I did not want to careless create loopholes.
My main concern is that these issues be a formal requirement of the
community's decision in where we meet. And that they be taken seriously.
a.
On 17 okt 2005, at 21.50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Avri" == Avri Doria <avri(_at_)acm(_dot_)org> writes:
Avri> - MUST NOT be held in a country whose visa requirements are
Avri> so stringent as to make it impossible or even extremely
Avri> difficult for some participant to attend.
I think this is too strict. I think visa criteria are an issue, but
saying that visa criteria prevent one participant from attending seems
way too strict.
More generally, any non-trivial set of MUST NOTs is going to be
impossible to satisfy simultaneously. I really don't see how we can
go further than should/should not, in practical reality.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf