Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)

Nemeth Krisztian <nemeth_k@soha.tmit.bme.hu> Sun, 25 March 2007 02:11 UTC

Return-path: <68attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVICg-0006Di-RL; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:11:30 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVICf-0006DO-KL for 68attendees@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:11:29 -0400
Received: from soha.tmit.bme.hu ([152.66.244.128]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVICe-0000fB-5e for 68attendees@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:11:29 -0400
Received: (qmail 24347 invoked by uid 11013); 25 Mar 2007 02:11:24 -0000
Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Mar 2007 02:11:24 -0000
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:11:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: Nemeth Krisztian <nemeth_k@soha.tmit.bme.hu>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)
In-Reply-To: <E494099B5ACEC25B26C1BD5C@[10.5.0.28]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703250347320.24294@soha.tmit.bme.hu>
References: <E494099B5ACEC25B26C1BD5C@[10.5.0.28]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
Cc: 68attendees@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: 68attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for IETF 68 attendees." <68attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees>, <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/68attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:68attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees>, <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: 68attendees-bounces@ietf.org

Hi John,

Just a short question:

> Even the "need to look at the people various visa regulations will keep out" 
> issue is, to me, secondary to this one even though I consider that one very, 
> very, important and hope we will never again hold two consecutive meetings 
> that de facto exclude the same people.

I don't understand that. Why excluding people because of visa issues is 
better (or secondary, as you say) than excluding people with health 
issues? In my understanding in both cases someone innocent is excluded. In 
this case I'd count both parties and decide according to that. Or, better, 
think about is it possible to locally arrange a smoke-free zone (probably 
yes) or a visa-free zone (not likely).

--------------------------------------------------

And now for something completely different :)

In an IETF meeting people from all around the globe meet. Yes, I know the 
largest delagate is from the US, but as far as I remember the plenary, its 
share is about 30-40%. I guess it's quite straightforward, that traveling 
to a different country/continent does involve some unavoidable 
inconviniences for everyone who is non-local. It's true for non-european 
people to travelling to Prague (or even for the non-Czech Europeans), for 
a non-Japanese to Tokyo, but also for non US (or non-local) people 
traveling to e.g., San Diego. However, if we accept this, and furthermore 
take a look also at the advantages (e.g., many people enjoyed this 
beautiful city), I guess Prague wasn't such a bad place compared to the 
others.

Thanks,
 	Krisztian

_______________________________________________
68ATTENDEES mailing list
68ATTENDEES@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees