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

Well, for some countries what Trump said, has already been a fact, for example 
the prohibition to have computers on board. Is not that the case?

Whatever we want to decide, cancel SF or not, it may highly depend on budget, 
we like it or not. And that means that we need answers:

    If we cancel San Francisco, how much that is going to cost to the IETF for 
each of two planned meetings?
    
    Can we cancel the actual hotel contract considering the new US situation? 
If not, has this been considered for new contracts to avoid this problem?
    
    Otherwise there is any reason that can justify the lack of transparency in 
this?

The problem is so big for this community that I don’t even agree that the IAOC 
should take the decision. It must be a collective one, especially when the IAOC 
is demonstrating thru facts that they don’t care that we are discussing and 
wasting our time without the minimum relevant data, this is disrespectful and 
even more, not responding to emails since even since years ago, shows lack of 
education 

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de Michael StJohns 
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
Responder a: <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
Fecha: jueves, 13 de abril de 2017, 20:37
Para: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: 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
    
    
    
    
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, including attached files, is prohibited.