ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input (off-topic)

2016-05-25 03:46:25
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Sandoche Balakrichenan
<sandoche(_dot_)balakrichenan(_at_)afnic(_dot_)fr> wrote:
On 24/05/16 21:35, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Sandoche,

I labeled my reply as off-topic as it is not directly related to the
topic.
Looking at the plethora of issues that has been discussed, i do agree
that Visa issue has become a off-topic :-).

At 06:41 24-05-2016, Sandoche Balakrichenan wrote:
But i would like to post a real issue here.

[snip]

Hence, my suggestion is that IETF should take the visa issue also into
account when considering a venue.

Please see Slide 25 at
https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IAOC-Overview-IETF86-Final.pdf
==> If the Visa issue has been seriously taken into consideration by the
IAOC, i think we should never had an IETF in the US. Ask the number of
students/professionals from Asian and Arab Countries, the harrassment
they pass through from the US embassy just to get a Visa.
  I don't know how the visa issue is handled in practice as I am not
an IAOC member.

==> I am not here to complain. But, just wanted to point out that the
community that i previously mentioned has learned to adjust and accepted
it as a way of life. If the IAOC has to consider all participants issues
before considering a venue, then  i think it will be difficult to find
one in our planet.

I think the visa issue affects a large portion of participants
(non-US/non-EU), yet it is hardly discussed as much on the IETF
mailing lists. I hope that the IAOC is taking that into consideration.
I also think it is rather more important than issues about getting
families to the IETF (which I believe is a perk and not a necessity).
I think we need to focus more on getting participants to the physical
meetings.

We talk about sharing the "travel pain". Visas is an important pain
point for number of Non-EU/Non-US countries.

-- Vinayak

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>