On 26 May 2016, at 22:21, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On May 26, 2016, at 4:01 PM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
Right, but should IETF need to hire lawyers in each country in order to get
an expert opinion about whether members of each of an enumerated set of
groups can legally be harassed when attending a meeting there, and about the
likelihood of that happening?
What about the IAOC writing to the IETF list and/or recent attendees when
they are considering going to a new country, asking if anyone has any
feedback on the idea? And then considering that feedback _before_ making a
final decision, signing a contract, etc?
And if there is some feedback that some community is disadvantaged by a choice
but the majority is not, which to be honest is likely to be the case every
time, doesn't that leave us in the same position as now, trying to work out how
to make a decision based on that feedback?
I am extremely sympathetic to avoiding situations where any group feels
disadvantaged, not even to (but certainly including) the point where they feel
that they can't attend.
However, I worry that there is no real solution to this that can be effected by
the IETF, and that any principled stand to avoid any particular location for
any particular reason is only going to inconvenience some other group for some
other reason. And the reasons we're talking about are not just those of human
rights, but also economics, hotel logistics, immigration controls and
commercial viability. I challenge anybody to find a location that it is not
possible to complain about, regardless of how minor any particular stakeholder
considers the particular complaint.
I appreciate that "inconvenience" sounds like a poor choice of words in many
cases, since "threat of imprisonment or death" for example surely deserves more
blunt and straightforward language. However, my fundamental point is that these
are all qualitative judgements that depend on perspective, context and
situation, and that it's hard to imagine that one size ever fits all.
Some random examples, not intended to be anything like a comprehensive list:
The US is an unsuitable venue if you want to take a principled stand against
pervasive surveillance or particular policies on border security that certainly
some have claimed is biased by skin colour.
Serious criticisms have been levelled at Canada relating to the rights of
indigenous women in Canada, and ask anybody from a developing country who has
had to apply for a visa for the first time how practical it was to get there.
The former inhabitants of Diego Garcia might have an opinion on the human
rights record of the UK.
Bhutan's progressive commitments to policymaking by conventional, human-centric
metrics are laudable and frequently celebrated, but that's of little comfort to
the people who were ejected from the country into Nepal and who aren't allowed
back. [I don't think we were ever likely to find Bhutan a sensible venue for
other reasons, but since it's frequently lauded for its approach to
decision-making it seems pertinent to point out that even those decisions are
not without collateral damage.]
My selfish, personal perspective is certainly that bad treatment of women and
LGBT people is far more serious an issue than the ability to be issued a visa
in a timely fashion. However, I have the accidental privilege of not needing
visas to visit most of the planet. Should my personal opinions have weight over
others? Do we have an established bias in past attendees that have an informed
opinion due to venue choices made in the past? Are we confident we can even
characterise this problem, never mind solve a weighted set of constraints to
find the most equitable solution?
It's a complicated problem of wet meat, and I sense people are trying to find
simple, cut-and-dry binary solutions because they are by nature engineers. In
the world of wet meat we need to be aware that principled stands are not always
compatible with getting work done, and that our ability to impact the policies
of others rather depends on the relevance that work feeds.
One thing is I think without argument: whatever the choice of venue, some
people's ability to attend will be compromised, and from their perspective this
will be unfair.
Joe