I understand it is too late to do anything about Chicago, but I suggest
that the IETF remove the US as a candidate for any future meetings.
Wanting to do something,
Paul
On 1/29/17 11:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
For obvious reasons, there is some renewed/increased interest in use of
remote hubs for IETF meetings. Although there has been quite a bit of
activity with hubs in recent years, I believe the expectations and
requirements for them have been kept informal (and possibly
idiosyncratic, with each hub doing whatever locals prefer.)
I believe that we should have a short term and long term goal.
Short term, since Chicago is literally upon us, I would say, let the remote hub
meet in any way that it can.
Long term, sure, let's figure out how to do it best. A number of us put
thoughts down for remote hubs as Internet Drafts, if those drafts are helpful,
great. If people want to start over, also great.
But, the important thing at the moment is to connect with the people in the
affected countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya.
What we need to do is to find a contact in each of the countries who can serve
as a focal point. If people agree, I can start a conversation about this on
the IETF-Africa list.
But, that does not take care of Iran, Iraq, Syria & Yemen. ISOC has had
Fellows from that region, maybe ISOC needs to be involved in this conversation.
Nalini
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
