Regards,
Brian Carpenter
Hi Brian,
I agree that is the requirement for the LLC. But the IESG would/should also need to evaluate whether it will be possible to have an effective/productive meeting.
Kind regards,
Rob// Not stating any opinion on where IETF 127 should be held.
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, 20 March 2025 at 02:22
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Travel Bans and IETF 127I don't believe the IETF, and certainly not IETF LLC, should be concerned with political opinions of participants. In the end it's a brutally practical question - will physical attendance at IETF 127 be sufficient to balance the books, or at least be financially preferable to paying the cancellation penalty?
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 20-Mar-25 04:29, David Lake wrote:
> It isn’t the geriatric one that concerns me as much as his wing men who are going to be around a much longer time (by the law of probabilities).
>
> David
>
> *From: *Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 19 March 2025 at 15:06
> *To: *Tzadik Vanderhoof <tzadik.vanderhoof@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc: *Jan Schaumann <jschauma=40netmeister.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> *Subject: *Re: Travel Bans and IETF 127
>
> It is not a question of boycotts (yet). The problem is that the US has recently begun reneging on the understanding that foreign visitors are afforded the same security and protection under the laws as US citizens expect when they go abroad.
>
> If the US does in fact invade other countries as the 'President' keeps threatening, the issue of boycotts certainly will become very relevant. It is very likely that the issue of security will also become relevant.
>
> Seems to me that there are different considerations in play before and after a contract has been signed with a hotel. The issue in this case is the circumstances have changed after the contract was signed. It is very possible that they will change again before IETF 127. The cause of this problem is an elderly man who is in visibly declining health.
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:30 PM Tzadik Vanderhoof <tzadik.vanderhoof@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:tzadik.vanderhoof@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Visa issues are a valid concern. Trying to accommodate everyone's politically motivated "boycotts" should NOT be. That's tantamount to the IETF taking a position in support of your boycott and is way out of line.
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 11:33 AM Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:marie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Another element is that many Canadians are currently boycotting travel to the US. We are not a majority of IETF participants but it’s worth mentioning.
>
> mjm
> Marie-José Montpetit, Ing. Ph.D.
>
> > On Mar 18, 2025, at 3:52 PM, Jan Schaumann <jschauma=40netmeister.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:40netmeister.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Alston <aa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> >> The New York Times recently published a list of countries planned for
> >> outright travel bans or sharply restricted visas, and another long list of
> >> countries that could end up in either the restricted or travel ban list.
> >
> > In addition to that, it should be noted that there has
> > been an increase in reports of people being detained
> > despite holding valid visas or entering the US as
> > e.g., tourists who do not need a visa, including the
> > cases of Fabian Schmidt, Lucas Sielaff, Jessica
> > Brösche, or Rebecca Burke (all of whom are from
> > countries _not_ on any travel ban list).
> >
> > Entering the US with a passport that shows neither
> > 'male' nor 'female' as the holder's gender is also
> > likely a significant risk factor now, and so the
> > location may thus practically exclude an entire class
> > of people from attending.
> >
> > -Jan
> >
>
