I support Andrew's criteria as well but I hesitate to go down the slippery slope of
"countries in which our participants will not face discrimination during their travels
or during participate during our events on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual
orientation or political affiliation." This becomes a problem when one considers:
- Singapore, a country we have gone to before and I'm pretty sure is acceptable by
Andrew's criteria has anti-sodomy laws on the books. I don't know of anyone being
arrested for it, but it's there.
- Thailand, a country we've been to and qualifies as acceptable by Andrew's
criteria, has a lèse-majesté law.
- a guy in the UK was arrested for tweeting a joke about Nelson Mandela, a joke
which some might find tasteless but might not depending on political affiliation.
- in Canada a Christian preacher was arrested for quoting the Bible to a young gay
man. That certainly discriminates against religious belief.
- Jews in Germany have recently been advised to not wear a kippa in public.
I mentioned the above cases not to incite a whataboutism response from anyone
because I know there are things about the USA that can give people the heebie-geebies
or make them feel that they would be discriminated against if they went to the USA.
I mention them to illustrate that the additional criteria you suggest adding might
sound acceptable in principle can become a problem in practice.
Instead of your additional criteria I suggest the IEEE 802 just explicitly state to
participants to be aware of local laws and customs and to act accordingly, what you
do or say at home might not be acceptable everywhere.
regards,
Dan.
Jon-
I support Andrew's criteria.
In addition, I believe we have an obligation to only have meetings
in countries in which our participants will not face discrimination
during their travels or during participate during our events on
the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political affiliation.
During the recent 802 Wireless Interim meeting in Atlanta, we had a discussion on the possible consideration of holding either an Interim or a Plenary in Istanbul, Turkey.
Andrew Myles sent to the 802.11 reflector the email below about his concern.
His point about having an objective criteria for selecting locations was a point well taken.
I propose that we discuss this during the July Plenary in Vienna.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rosdahl Engineer, Senior Staff
office: 801-492-4023 Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
cell: 801-376-6435 10871 North 5750 West
Highland, UT 84003
A Job is only necessary to eat!
A Family is necessary to be happy!!
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
G’day all
Today at the IEEE 802.11 WG closing meeting there was a brief discussion and straw poll on the question of whether the IEEE 802 Wireless WGs should consider a proposal for a future meeting in Istanbul, Turkey. The straw poll indicted broad
but not universal support. After the straw poll, I made some comments which I would like to repeat here.
While this e-mail is in the context of the proposal for a meeting in Istanbul, it is really about agreeing on a policy for choosing locations based on security considerations that is objective, rather than relying on individuals’ views of
the security of a location. Indeed from a personal perspective, I would love an opportunity to return to Turkey (I was last there in 1988) because it is an awesome country, with a fascinating history, populated by an incredibly generous and friendly people;
I felt safe there at all times.
That said, I believe it is inappropriate for us to plan a meeting in Istanbul, Turkey at this time, based on my proposed new policy that we should only plan to hold meetings at locations in the two lowest travel advisory categories defined
by the US Dept of State (or equivalent from another credible source)
Assumptions:
·
We have a responsibility to our members and their employers to plan meetings only in locations that are believed to be safe for our members. Of course, it is understood bad things can occur anywhere, at any time.
·
We do not have the skills within IEEE 802 to evaluate the security of any location. Therefore, we should outsource any evaluation to a credible source. I suggest we use the US Dept of State travel advisories as a credible source, although
there are many similar sources that could also be used.
The problem with Istanbul, Turkey is that Turkey is currently rated by the US Dept of State travel advisories as “3) Reconsider travel”. This is the second highest level, out of:
1)
Exercise normal precautions
2)
Exercise increased caution
3)
Reconsider travel
4)
Do not travel
In contrast, the advisories for our other planned future meetings indicate only Spain is above the lowest level:
·
Austria: 1) Exercise normal precautions
·
Vietnam: 1) Exercise normal precautions
·
USA: Take normal security precautions (based on Canadian Govt advisory)
·
Poland: 1) Exercise normal precautions
·
Canada: 1) Exercise normal precautions
·
Thailand: 1) Exercise normal precautions
·
Spain: 2) Exercise increased caution
|
Andrew Myles
Manager, Cisco Standards
<image001.jpg>
|
|
Andrew Myles
Manager, Enterprise Standards
amyles@cisco.com
Phone: +61 2 8446 1010
Mobile: +61 418 656587
|
Cisco Systems Limited
The Forum 201 Pacific Highway
St Leonards 2065
AUSTRALIA
Cisco.com
|
|
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1