I wonder if this is a real question. Of course they are not the same in a linguistic and definitional sense.
The real question might be, are there reasonable requirements beyond being open that are necessary for something to be called inclusive.
There is probably a set of such requirements and I expect that the application of the requirements is different to each claim of open therefore accessible.
-
In this case, it is a challenge to the IETF's claim that it has been completely open on the least expensive most available Internet program, text based email, for a very long time and thus has been inclusive for a very long time.
In exploring the challenge, the issue becomes, what is missing from the IETF's notion of inclusively, if anything?
One possibility I can imagine is language, but on protocol standards, there is a question as to whether specifications can be translated precisely enough. I tend to think not.
Another is outreach. Is there a degree of outreach that is required to make an open door accessible? It certainly seems to me that the possibility of reviewing IETF comments has been discussed in many places. And certainly in the last few years many have been informing the policy community of the opportunities to get involved in such open activities. I had notified several internet spaces of the this and previous opportunities.
So to me, in this case, I would argue that IETF review mechanisms are indeed open and accessible.