Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3 of draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?

--On Saturday, 22 November, 2008 13:43 -0600 Fred Baker
<fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> For the record, such people often know what the word "Cisco"
> implies, and sending letters on that letterhead has been
> ineffective. I'm all for getting it solved, but I would not
> assume that fixes will be either quick or painless.

One observation in the hope of adding to Fred's attempt to bring
some reality to this discussion.

Lobbying for better or more rational polices _might_ have some
effect if the issue really were long-term policy.  But it,
whether focused on the role of the IETF or on multiple-time
visitors with specific skills, will do little to help if the
problem is either one or two visa officials having a bad week
and feeling a need to demonstrate how powerful they are (no real
evidence of that here, but there have been incidents of that in
the past) or a temporary, and usually petty, feud between
governments. In this case, it is hard to believe that there is
only a coincidental relationship between reports of US citizens
having trouble getting visas to enter China for the Olympics and
increased difficulties getting visas to visit some parts of the
country and the apparently-sudden increase in foot-dragging and
visa non-issuance by the US a few months later.

Of course, to the extent that this is "we can do it, therefore
we will" retaliation by US consular officials against the
perceived previous behavior of the Chinese government, the
latter government is involved, albeit indirectly.

If there is a real solution to this problem, short of putting
China on the recently-expanded visa waiver program list, it is
for the US to start issuing moderately long-term multiple-entry
visas to people who have been appropriately investigated and
cleared --once-- but who are frequent short-term visitors rather
than permanent residents.   That can't happen overnight because
it would require inventing a new category in a system that, IMO,
already has far too many categories.    But, if I wanted to
seriously lobby State, it would be for something along those
lines, with the request made in conjunction with other
professional societies, conference-holders, and relevant
multinational companies, not for a general policy of specific
better treatment for IETF attendees.

Just IMO, of course.

     john

p.s. for those harboring "ship" fantasies, I recommend careful
study of the IRS rules about meetings on cruise vessels.  While
it might, in principle, solve the visa problem if one could work
out the port of call/ where to catch the boat issue, those whose
participation is supported by organizations who need to pay
attention to their US tax bills might find that they had hit a
showstopper from another direction.

_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
73attendees@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees