Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5677312D553 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X3-xub0rJhTQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22e.google.com (mail-lf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9821E12D13A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id e130so21171631lfe.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0ExUhfkP5C/YqMEspOS3DAnkj0q7IwRbKkMyD3KjK2o=; b=BPI6RotB7zXn0E5PYSKxE3gkxHXVwxzJv4C8j8Lmx9WwnDfAbS1KgujJtTRUKI4Xpa yopfz8oAjd8DjXSc11NxvGcVW6cHUMWt8qfFeGd2y/Hyb4OJwlDcdomFjZ99asaolnNg +AoJX1YaYDhGk4ynwXkmuk/RZ5jfARygTNlZ8bDLR5apfDo2G9vXSMoVPmozhJAZ3VCJ h194ZTYeWaWBbCjGN2QoXyI0CfOOiLeDWIRrTj0mXd3VbRHn2CAt9Wd7lTUIScOUxBBj N7Y6BYkMZewy1PzQGRHDfaelY3DN9AHWggDMWZUJKiDRMl9W4qPIX7LETKT28zUGi4H0 +9Kg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0ExUhfkP5C/YqMEspOS3DAnkj0q7IwRbKkMyD3KjK2o=; b=CQFjGKj0YWf+kSEeKoDDcXGhO+gPZdJzUaG7KK5YhLi59+P3EhwkYhiDczFLcnRQGp wZvdaiyyqUNvLE+TTD0kSlxpBL44lJV3EFTXC+Na+CvBKUIp8yfskC5Iarkijphr3ylg g+wDs7P4X1JIf95lLhfFUhR9iK52aKPKWW596jp0Kfm4AkxZ6M2wWdz7AW6XXFhRmc5x atUX133n99WFS5bMiBOkvbCXs58SjjvuqIznd80IXc1pvBPUhMv5Nhoj4BmOXLmUI6l8 XahoJbduCW/nq5fOLVfKoscHN4Rwj9QeYNi7yWUlCazWGRg3awFJtsLp0bbbtSne9cCu iKAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIM2P9b1601Jw8mlN8v1zcGGzf5hofuvX0eD78NwkJnGy93iz/sVa0g2bEYNi0kdgYihN2wyD1a/zInnQ==
X-Received: by 10.25.210.202 with SMTP id j193mr1342894lfg.139.1464197190104; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.153.135 with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <354B601A-34B1-43BE-93F9-9CBFAF46BABF@gmail.com>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <bd1f61ef-3be2-1a16-804c-68548df0b789@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605242300120.194@rabdullah.local> <da508fd5-307c-c61e-5b72-185238414a9c@gmail.com> <1936013436.371962.1464185835726.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <439c30dc-3d3c-e6e3-43f2-812a66496379@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1605251847190.28372@uplift.swm.pp.se> <354B601A-34B1-43BE-93F9-9CBFAF46BABF@gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:25:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kOr-6jyPrb1r1ggst-D47E+MaNTb2fFG-qvR4sTJegbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11412a8865d85d0533adf908
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2QRA-tlTTUFrdWH4Feou5mWnmnQ>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:26:37 -0000

It's a real risk: http://boingboing.net/2009/12/11/dr-peter-watts-canad.html

Peter was convicted and spent time in jail, and until recently was not
eligible for reentry to the US.   His crime?   When a border patrol officer
started searching his car without asking permission or even saying why, he
asked why, and was not properly submissive when the officer demanded it of
him.   Don't tell me there's nobody in the IETF who would behave similarly
in the similar circumstances.   This sort of thing happens to people of
color fairly frequently in the U.S.; the only thing unusual about Peter
Watts' case was that he is white and Canadian.   We have special prisons in
the U.S. for non-citizens who have run afoul of U.S. immigration.

The risk of being arrested for carrying Ritalin, asthma medicine or
Adderall into Japan is also real, and there have been arrests in the past
five years.

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> > On May 25, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 25 May 2016, Melinda Shore wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps we should regard this as an opportunity to talk about which
> forms of bigotry we'll accommodate and which we won't.
> >
> > We're accomodating bigotry all the time.
> >
> > Compare:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Singapore
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_States#Visa_exemption
> >
> > Now tell me how many more participants enjoy a lot less hassle in order
> to attend Singapore compared to attending a meeting in USA? Notice also
> that this isn't theoretical or low risk hassle, this is actual hassle of
> having to go through a visa application process with all that means.
>
> I went through a visa application process to attend the meeting in China,
> and there was no point in that process where I was concerned that I might
> be imprisoned for my race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or gender
> expression…
>
> Is that a real risk for IETF attendees who are applying for visas to
> attend U.S. meetings?  If so, in what way?  Or are you talking about
> annoying paperwork?
>
> Margaret
>
>