If we change the topic to "If Israeli's are blocked by Malaysia, should the
IETF respond", this already happened.
The IETF did not meet there but there was no "IETF response", so why should the
IETF respond in this case.
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process talks about selecting venues
not about voicing opinion on any country policies.
We should be active in selecting meeting venues and if people are banned from
traveling to the USA or any other country, it may not be a meeting location
based on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process
Roni
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: יום ב 30 ינואר 2017 02:43
To: IETF
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Responding to the original question:
Indeed, MTGVENUE is the place to discuss the impacts of this and other
potential issues to how we select future meeting locations.
Now would be a great time to read the documents and participate the
discussion. For what it is worth, the IAOC and its meetings committee are
also tracking the situation, including understanding specific impacts. And
obviously this is a developing situation and the long term is more interesting
than this week’s particular issue.
As for possible other reactions — maybe, but it isn’t as obvious. Clearly, I
think we all are unhappy about this development. And I have not met
anybody at the IETF who wouldn’t stand for open participation. SM posted
ACM’s statement.
But, if I look again at the crystal ball of obvious predictions, I wouldn’t be
surprised if recent trends would at some point also generate some Internet-
related bad policy suggestions.
This is just my 0.02μBTC but I personally would want to prioritise putting my
time to dealing with those situations, be it about making statements or
developing some tech to help the situation. As we have done in the case of
pervasive monitoring, for instance. But again, just my personal opinion.
Jari