Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 05 April 2017 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 656F512706D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.296
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.296 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 xVE60xJ3sxqe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 805DB127A90 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA50C00282B; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=50C1Do+9cPoSwE OB2WfOnf40+9M=; b=GlahX+LzJv/SJmBXMifXImgH3cviidD8XhsG95Pz9W/4t0 DTWB5XX2Ao01+ebF275g64fiiIuA2jCSJbhNGg+/3IefHTU1G76p1QOTK+hhgPLK 0LM5IeHOhY+herQzml29AGAE/a0dfmfNw7muakawQ5EUp71AzThhJEoHEX8EQ=
Received: from localhost (gzac12-mdf2-1.aoa.twosigma.com [208.77.215.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F882C002828; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:49:05 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Cc: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Message-ID: <20170405184904.GE4004@localhost>
References: <E068F01A-B720-4E7A-A60F-AA5BDA22D535@consulintel.es> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <CAAQiQRcvu-BfBA_NEqZwXsHEn6ujpa2=w7P5Vu2f6GLXjKqkcA@mail.gmail.com> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost> <2987213d-075e-beff-64f8-d316709c404a@cs.tcd.ie> <20170404204617.GC16732@puck.nether.net> <e70a5f90-02b1-7ec5-30dd-9cd7f20821b1@cisco.com> <b814561c-939a-51b8-b999-d08cad0c15bd@gmail.com> <CAA=duU3SgL8ZGV2YDv4SmbhBqSygYyECwYd93YUjMaD2Pf6F_g@mail.gmail.com> <518dd91b-a09e-651b-ec6f-15076a3cf8a0@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <518dd91b-a09e-651b-ec6f-15076a3cf8a0@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/32MZ_WLQDS47Itxml3w9Lp07JLg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 05 Apr 2017 18:49:10 -0000

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 03:50:50PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Here, we're talking about uncertainty about whether or not Canadian
> ...

Uncertainty and a high rate of change without public comment/review
periods is actually concerning indeed.

It's nice to see this sort of thing:

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/327246-bipartisan-bill-would-end-warrantless-searches-of-digital-devices-at

though it's probably not going to pass right away, and it wouldn't
really protect non-U.S.-persons (since other reasons could still be used
to refuse entry).

I still think that we're not likely to see much impact on IETF
participants, but it's certainly fine to schedule fewer meetings in the
U.S. for the time being until we have more experience (possibly from
other conferences' sharing theirs).

Nico
--