On 1/29/17 11:08 AM, James Seng wrote:
I rescind my previous comment that the scenario I painted is rhetorical.
None of our US fellow IETFers here have any moral authority to talk
about "inclusive" ever again.
I don't derive my moral authority from my government and you have no
standing to decide whether I wield it or not.
Moral preening has no place in the IETF. Please stop.
Dan.
-James Seng
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:44 AM, James Seng <james(_dot_)seng(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:james(_dot_)seng(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>> wrote:
Since after 9-11, things have change a lot for United States[1].
Especially for TSA, I remember going to SFO the first time after
9-11, it took me 2 hours just to clear the security and I missed
my flight. I also remember pre 9-11, I could get into US for less
than 15-20mins.
Now, for my American friends who pay in the price in time, let me
tell you what we non-American citizen has to do to get into US
after 9-11. We have been tagged, photographed, fingerprinted, all
our 10 fingers every time we have to enter US. We have been
systematically profiled, often by racial or nationality, and some
of us have to go through enhanced body-to-body search everytime we
cross security. I was put in a "Muslim" basket been a Malaysian
for a while so ... And we have to do it with a smile because if
any of us pull of a stunt like Aaron Tobey[2], we could be denied
our entry and possibility forever.
My wife complains that the over the last decade I have put on a
lot of weight and asked me to check my photos. Unfortunately, I
don't like selfie nor do I like to take pictures of myself. But I
told her not to worry as TSA has a complete profile of me becoming
fat over the years.
Today, we all saw a US President may-to-be calling up to forbid
Muslim to enter US, to build walls to prevent people from the
south, who threaten to get even tougher to foreigners.
So by the same principle that Jeff is advocate, that we hold IETF
meeting where "law declares some people less valid",
I prognosticate we may no longer able to hold our meetings in US.
[1]
http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/united-states-after-911-6-things-have-changed-2001-2093156
<http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/united-states-after-911-6-things-have-changed-2001-2093156>
[2] http://dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/how-to-fight-the-tsa
<http://dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/how-to-fight-the-tsa>
ps: This is rhetorical to put any doubt in rest. I love US even
though getting there is still a pain for me.
-James Seng
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:34 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304)
<MHammer(_at_)ag(_dot_)com <mailto:MHammer(_at_)ag(_dot_)com>> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>] On Behalf Of Thompson, Jeff
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:55 AM
> To: Dan Harkins
> Cc: recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; Ietf@Ietf. Org
> Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no
go for IETF
> 100
>
> On 2016/5/26, 21:11:51, "Recentattendees on behalf of Dan
Harkins"
> <recentattendees-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:recentattendees-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on behalf of
dharkins(_at_)lounge(_dot_)org <mailto:dharkins(_at_)lounge(_dot_)org>>
> wrote:
>
> > I would also like to suggest that the ability of certain
members to
> >bring their family on a vacation that coincides with an
IETF should not
> >be a governing factor in venue selection. Many people like
to launder a
> >business trip into a family vacation (myself
> >included!) but that's not why the IETF exists and it should
have no
> >bearing on where we meet.
>
> So then, the IETF policy would read ³The IETF may hold
meetings in countries
> where the law declares some people less valid. If you are
such a person, then
> the IETF recommends that to avoid trouble with the law you
should hide who
> you are, including not bringing your family.²
>
> Is this the organization that the IETF is going to be?
>
> - Jeff
>
Jeff,
Is there any country in the world that meets the standard your
comment implies should be the IETF policy? Is this a case of
perfection being the enemy of good? Perhaps it is a case of
perfection being the enemy of reality. I don't know what IETF
policy should be but I do recognize that there are very real
limitations that constrain choices. I'll also point out that
the choices made will constrain the choices of participants.
I'm not advocating for any particular choice by the IETF with
regard to meeting locations.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Recentattendees mailing list
Recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:Recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees>
--
-James Seng
--
-James Seng