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

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Mani, Mehdi 
<Mehdi(_dot_)Mani(_at_)itron(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As an european holding a french passport with my origin coming from Iran i
> cannot travel to US with this executive order of Mr Trump even if i work for
> an American company.
>
> So i beleive as well that meeting venues should not be any more in US with
> such à discriminatory law.
I am concerned on the fact that some people are taking this discussion
to anti-America meeting sites, especially as someone living in the US.
I remind people that just a few years ago, all the meetings were being
held in the US.
US is the home ship for IETF. Yes, I sympatize with those having
issues in entering and hope that somehow those restrictions will go
away.

Actually I propose meeting more often in the US, that will be good for
everybody.

Regards,
Behcet
> Regards
> Mehdi
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 30 Jan 2017, at 20:58, MH Michael Hammer (5304) 
> <MHammer(_at_)ag(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> [2] 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_recentattendees&d=DwICAg&c=pqcuzKEN_84c78MOSc5_fw&r=Epy6n6lZ-_AtB6Unawan0zjIdEv95r_5HxuTpDOXS88&m=YG0d5xRrune4H9v4a848Pf_VWTMitYGP8HqzQqCQN5E&s=IbrWLu7DYbdtAsLRNOqj9FIMn8BuytPgAY3QQ-34hu4&e=