Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

On 4/12/2017 8:44 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> That's a fair point. I think though that it also puts on onus on
> any folks who adamantly think we ought continue to meet in the US,
> to also publicly justify that, given the opposite arguments already
> voiced on the list.

Does it also put the onus on say the UK and the rest of the EU to gaze 
into the future and promise that the breakup will be amicable and that 
there will be no changes in the current passage rules between the two or 
even between EU members?
As much as you might like to require someone to prove a negative - it's 
generally understood that proposing that someone do so tends to be more 
of a political debate trick than anything else.
Looking back in history, immediately after 9/11 - arguably the biggest 
provocation the US has received during the Internet era - 4 out of the 5 
IETF meetings immediately after 9/11 were held in the US under the 
increased travel scrutiny that we take for granted now and we adapted.  
The current questions are or need to be:  What are the changes and can 
we adapt.
We have a US President that has made big claims and broad pronouncements 
- but here's the thing.  He's not a dictator and he's bound by strong 
laws and constitutional requirements that limit his reach.   Basing a 
decision on whether or not to hold meetings in the US based on only what 
Trump says and does vs what he might say and do vs looking at what 
actually happens (e.g. travel restrictions held in abeyance due to 
perceived constitutional violations) seems to be taking counsel of fears 
rather than counsel of facts.
I would suggest that we not cancel SF and use it to gain FACTS. I would 
suggest that by the time SF comes around the bulk of changes (if any) 
will have occurred and we will be able to quantify their impact on the 
IETF participants in the scope of that meeting and whether future 
meetings will need to be held elsewhere for a period of time or whether 
we're able to adapt.  I would further suggest that the impact of having 
one "bad" meeting would be minimal in the broader scheme of things vs 
not having a consensus and agreement on both the actual problem and the 
solution to said problem.

Mike