Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Hi,

Of course, we don’t have the crystal ball, but in the case of actual US
situation, I think the chances were so high, that we made a mistake going
to Chicago.


In my opinion, the only ones who knew this would happen were Michael Moore
and Lisa Simpson…

Regards,

Christer

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Naeem Khademi <naeem(_dot_)khademi(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Responder a: <naeem(_dot_)khademi(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Fecha: martes, 31 de enero de 2017, 10:44
Para: <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
CC: "recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" 
<recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, "Ietf@Ietf.
Org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF
100

   
   
   On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:58 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> wrote:
   
   If we include such a cancellation clause, we should also have an
insurance contract to cover the non-refundable cost such as flights and
hotels that some participants book 1 year in advance in order to have it
cheaper.
   
   
   
   The next IETF in the US after Chicago, would be in July 2018 in SF. I
don't think it's even possible to buy a flight ticket for that time as of
now (most airlines wouldn't do such pre-sale). So, it's pretty much
possible to relocate that meeting elsewhere with causing no loss to
anyone's already-made plans.
   
   Regards,
   Naeem 
    
   
   
   Regards,
   Jordi
   
   
   -----Mensaje original-----
   De: Recentattendees <recentattendees-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en 
nombre de
"MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer(_at_)ag(_dot_)com>
   Responder a: <MHammer(_at_)ag(_dot_)com>
   Fecha: lunes, 30 de enero de 2017, 20:57
   Para: James Seng <james(_dot_)seng(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
   CC: "recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" 
<recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, "Thompson,
Jeff" <jefft0(_at_)remap(_dot_)ucla(_dot_)edu>, Dan Harkins 
<dharkins(_at_)lounge(_dot_)org>,
"Ietf@Ietf. Org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
   Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for
IETF 100
   
   
       James,
   
       Seeing as the email you chose to quote was a response to my email
from May 27th, 2016, I’m left trying to decide if you were responding
specifically
        to my comments or that earlier thread in general. I still stand
by my statements even if it means that the ultimate IETF decision is not
to hold meetings in the USA  I think your prognostication unfortunately
was correct. I was not being rhetorical in my
        earlier comments  We, as participants engaged in technical
efforts across national boundaries need to figure out pragmatic ways of
ensuring our efforts and activities continue to function despite
decisions by specific localities.
   
       Looking forward, it might be reasonable for IETF to include a
cancellation clause based on the government of the host country engaging
in an act like the ban
        (after the contract has been signed.)
   
       Mike
   
       From: James Seng [mailto:james(_dot_)seng(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
   
       Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:08 PM
       To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
       Cc: Thompson, Jeff; Dan Harkins; recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
Ietf@Ietf. Org
       Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go
for IETF 100
   
   
   
       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.
   
   
   
       -James Seng
   
   
       On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:44 AM, James Seng
<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-change
d-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> wrote:
   
   
       > -----Original Message-----
       > From: ietf [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; 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 on behalf of
       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
       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
       --
   
       -James Seng
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
       --
       -James Seng
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
       _______________________________________________
       Recentattendees mailing list
       Recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
   
   
   
   
   
   
   **********************************************
   IPv4 is over
   Are you ready for the new Internet ?
   http://www.consulintel.es
   The IPv6 Company
   
   This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.