Brian,
This seems to me to be somewhere on the continuum from "no
brainer" to "rocket science" - with a high likelihood of not being
too near the "rocket science" end.
It would be good to caution the IETF Secretariat and meeting
sponsors to consider the potential for difficulty in getting into
and out of a specific meeting venue. It is also a good idea for
would-be IETF meeting attendees to take time in advance of meetings
to discover for themselves whether there has been in the past - or
is likely to be in the future - any difficulty in getting into or
leaving some specific meeting location. This applies to a lot of
different considerations, including political, medical and physical
issues with entry into and exit from any location.
Many companies (and other organizations) maintain travel
advisory status on a number of places. And sponsor organizations
are most likely aware of the potential for embarrassment if the
meeting location they sponsor causes a lot of grief for many of
the wanna-be attendees (roughly equivalent to not having thought
to offer T-shirts).
There are plenty of reasons why people who might wish to
- or even need to - attend a meeting are unable to do so, and we
have been able to deal with it in the past. That's one reason
why there is redundancy in the AD and WG Chair positions.
About the only thing that really ought to be done is to
add a "caution" to the web page under each IETF meeting, that
would be where people could look to find out about any known
issues relating to the meeting venue. Worst case scenarios
are the ones where someone gets to a venue and finds out about
serious problems that require them to immediately leave, or is
turned around en-route because of - for example - border entry
issues.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
--> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
--> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:01 AM
--> To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: I-D
--> ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
-->
--> Joe Abley wrote:
--> >
--> > On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:55, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
--> >
--> >> Well said Barry!
--> >>
--> >>> From: Barry Leiba
--> >>>
--> >>> My biggest concern is in sections "2.3. Freedom of
--> Participation"
--> >>> and "2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas", in that
--> I'm not sure
--> >>> how realistic they are. Without getting overly into
--> politics (let's
--> >>> please not), I think they reflect a somewhat naïve view
--> of some of
--> >>> the political realities. Specifically...
--> >>>
--> >>> Meetings should not be held in countries where some
--> >>> attendees could
--> >>> be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not
--> >>> guaranteed for
--> >>> all participants.
--> >
--> >
--> > Indeed. Applied with vigour, this restriction implies
--> that no country
--> > is suitable to meet in. That leaves us with parts of
--> Antarctica, a
--> > floating venue located in international waters, or zero-g
--> bar BOFs in
--> > outer space. I favour the latter.
--> >
--> > A slightly more realistic approach might be to hold
--> meetings regularly
--> > in different countries with (ideally) divergent security/
--> immigration
--> > policies, in the hope that successive meetings might at
--> least exclude
--> > different sets of people.
-->
--> This is a very important issue as we consider visiting
--> countries we've never
--> visited before and as visa regulations change in countries
--> we have been
--> to often. It would be very useful to know how more people
--> feel we should
--> tune these criteria.
-->
--> Brian
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf