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
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3 ofdraf… 张国强
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Ross Callon
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… qdang
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Ted Lemon
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Randy Bush
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor 2.3ofdraft-… Eric Gray
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor 2.3ofdraft-… George Michaelson
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Dean Willis
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Ted Lemon
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor 2.3ofdraft-… Mike McBride (mmcbride)
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Randall Gellens
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Ed Jankiewicz
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified or not ? Max Pala
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor 2.3ofdraft-… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Scott Brim
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Randy Bush
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Melinda Shore
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Ted Lemon
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… David Quigley
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor 2.3ofdraft-… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-… Yi Zhao
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-… Yi Zhao
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Randy Bush
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Fred Baker
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor 2.3ofdraft-… Dean Willis
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Dean Willis
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Randy Bush
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… David Kessens
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified or not ? Massimiliano Pala
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-… Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Gene Gaines
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Dean Willis
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-… Matthew Ford
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-p… Livingood, Jason
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-p… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [73attendees] Is USAqualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-pa… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-p… Max Pala
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-p… Randy Bush
- Re: [73attendees] Is USAqualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-pa… YAO Jiankang
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-p… Fernando Gont
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-… Fred Baker
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-p… Fred Baker
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-p… James Seng
- Re: [73attendees] IsUSA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-… Tom.Petch
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… YAO Jiankang
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-p… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-… Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [73attendees] IsUSA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-… Jari Arkko
- Re: [73attendees] IsUSA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-… Marc Blanchet
- Re: [73attendees] IsUSA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-… Randy Bush
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Phillip Hallam-baker
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft… Raj Yaralagadda