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

qdang@nist.gov Tue, 18 November 2008 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <73attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 73attendees-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-73attendees-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C105528C1F2; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:00:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: 73attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 73attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87BD28C1A9; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:00:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Axq577x3oIXo; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.nist.gov (rimp2.nist.gov [129.6.16.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8272828C193; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nist.gov (webmail.nist.gov [129.6.16.34]) by smtp.nist.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mAIFxn3m010187; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:59:49 -0500
Received: from apache by webmail.nist.gov with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <qdang@nist.gov>) id 1L2SzV-00027E-RG; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:59:49 -0500
Received: from 130.129.30.43 ([130.129.30.43]) by webmail.nist.gov (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:59:49 -0500
Message-ID: <20081118105949.108966jc49wwndyt@webmail.nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:59:49 -0500
From: qdang@nist.gov
To: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>
References: <427021276.00739@cnnic.cn> <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C051E2DD5@emailwf1.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C051E2DD5@emailwf1.jnpr.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.2)
X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-NIST-MailScanner-From: qdang@nist.gov
Cc: 73attendees@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
X-BeenThere: 73attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the attendees of IETF 73 meeting." <73attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees>, <mailto:73attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/73attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:73attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:73attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees>, <mailto:73attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="Yes"
Sender: 73attendees-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 73attendees-bounces@ietf.org

I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many
people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in
the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will
be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year
alone.




Quoting "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>et>:

> I agree that this has been a significant issue, and that it is not  
> appropriate to have a large number of meetings in a location where a  
> significant number of potential attendees cannot get a visa to  
> attend. For this reason I have been an advocate of having a  
> disproportionate number of the North American meetings in Canada  
> rather than the USA (to me the Vancouver and Montreal locations have  
> been just as convenient as nearby US locations, and I assume that  
> there must also be suitable facilities in Toronto and elsewhere).
>
> One thing that I wonder about is whether or not this will get better  
> with the change of administrations in January. Thus I would be  
> interested in hearing at the next two US IETFs (San Francisco in  
> March 2009, and Anaheim in March 2010) whether people have had an  
> easier time than they did at the current or past IETFs.
>
> Ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 73attendees-bounces@ietf.org  
> [mailto:73attendees-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ???
> Sent: 18 November 2008 10:15
> To: healthyao@gmail.com; ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: 73attendees@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for  
> 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
>
> yes, it's really a problem that IETF meeting organizers should  
> seriously consider.
>
>
>
> 在您的来信中曾经提到:
>> From: "YAO" <healthyao@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To:
>> To: <ietf@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3 of
> draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
>> Date:Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:24:41 +0800
>>
>>
>>
>> according to IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04#section-2.3
>>
>> which said "
>>
>> 2.3.  Freedom of Participation
>>
>>    Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could
>>    be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for
>>    all participants.
>> "
>>
>> My question is :"
>>
>> Is USA qualified for 2.3 of  
>> draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria as
> IETF Meeting Venue ?"
>>
>> It seems that many IETFer are disallowed to enter USA for ietf  
>> meeting when ietf
> is held in USA this time or other times
>> _______________________________________________
>> 73attendees mailing list
>> 73attendees@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 73attendees mailing list
> 73attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees
>

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