Re: [Gendispatch] Re: Last IETF ever in China ?! Re: Agenda request: draft-rescorla-anonymous-network

Hi Jim, Deb, All,
At 04:57 PM 04-04-2026, James Guichard wrote:
>You missed another possible reason which was the case for me. 
>Medical issues prevented travel.

Sorry about that.

I'll add: a participant may not be able to attend a meeting due to 
personal circumstances.  I did not think of that reason when I 
replied to the exchange between Ted and George about "not a fan of 
protest based reasons to avoid a venue".

Deb is correct on the LLC travel fund.  It can be quite intrusive to 
get into the details of why someone cannot make it to a 
location.  It's something which I might talk about, face to face, 
with a person if there are problems which we have both experienced.

I'll disclose that I was funded by the Internet Society in the past 
to attend a few IETF meetings.  If anyone is of the opinion that my 
views may be biased on the topic because of the past funding, I am 
open to hearing their opinion on that.

As a response to Eliot (Cc:), one of the points in RFC 8718 is that: 
'Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are likely to 
be such that an overwhelming majority of participants who wish to do 
so can attend.'  I assume that the word "participants" in that 
sentence is not interchangeable with the word "attendee".  I also 
assume that it was intended to include IESG members.

As a response to Watson (Cc:), a person can read the IETF records for 
a meeting to see whether there is a systemic issue in regards to 
travel barriers.  The previous sentence is not intended to imply that 
what he wrote is incorrect.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy