Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Fri, 14 April 2017 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=12776aa295=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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 23A90128B92 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=jordi.palet@consulintel.es header.d=consulintel.es
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 9L5oBR_Fpqml for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [217.126.185.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EBA9128DF3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1492158234; x=1492763034; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=Pfrps1/hfdQxFO8n7+ZOhTA2E qnbq22U1ivq8cKRNPA=; b=Z/y+FsDMjEP/35aHT637FO5XRhQVH+/pSRHUTyMK0 14pfYA+aLhAbwKQeqkFx6ApJdMoWk1mjIdOgi0sx0GNlXSIu2JrW1L3Q4WBek55S fefolObWmb5RihWlftDGqf/ORADldZeJODxal4L4DGJE1XmJj0M8wNIohPaYF0Zv 08=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=oagsxpgjba7WMK2dR+lHF/7FnV/M1Rz3hFdz4aQ6ImSHqeMD+VjU2SI+LPum E9JzeekzcEURtnVP08eirVkBrR1SkG2lnpo0zp8ut+CQUtXGywrpXNyhz df/54ctCj5K7houhqFqnt0tb9O858r6sNfn7aYHPwzd1egDc/ObM6o=;
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:23:54 +0200
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:23:54 +0200
Received: from [10.10.10.99] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50005408361.msg for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:23:52 +0200
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-HashCash: 1:20:170414:md50005408361::T9vNBXPrXdUVWrQs:00000dbK
X-Return-Path: prvs=12776aa295=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ietf@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.21.0.170409
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:23:50 +0200
Subject: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <D846BB0A-D2B2-424A-9166-F8D591C56EBF@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
References: <149204035801.15694.8437554373033456064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <16010f27-e86b-b17d-4a13-62645e0bdc89@cs.tcd.ie> <a52be35f-df24-6581-90e6-bc2a262736ea@joelhalpern.com> <56c58cdd-1cc9-2e55-556a-2b799eb6e1cc@cs.tcd.ie> <43378975-daf3-0170-35c7-b57e03b834b2@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <43378975-daf3-0170-35c7-b57e03b834b2@comcast.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3BhGnAllG_fFT8lonP08Ek0N8gk>
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: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:24:00 -0000

Well, for some countries what Trump said, has already been a fact, for example the prohibition to have computers on board. Is not that the case?

Whatever we want to decide, cancel SF or not, it may highly depend on budget, we like it or not. And that means that we need answers:

    If we cancel San Francisco, how much that is going to cost to the IETF for each of two planned meetings?
    
    Can we cancel the actual hotel contract considering the new US situation? If not, has this been considered for new contracts to avoid this problem?
    
    Otherwise there is any reason that can justify the lack of transparency in this?

The problem is so big for this community that I don’t even agree that the IAOC should take the decision. It must be a collective one, especially when the IAOC is demonstrating thru facts that they don’t care that we are discussing and wasting our time without the minimum relevant data, this is disrespectful and even more, not responding to emails since even since years ago, shows lack of education 

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Responder a: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Fecha: jueves, 13 de abril de 2017, 20:37
Para: <ietf@ietf.org>
Asunto: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

    On 4/12/2017 8:44 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
    > That's a fair point. I think though that it also puts on onus on
    > any folks who adamantly think we ought continue to meet in the US,
    > to also publicly justify that, given the opposite arguments already
    > voiced on the list.
    
    
    Does it also put the onus on say the UK and the rest of the EU to gaze 
    into the future and promise that the breakup will be amicable and that 
    there will be no changes in the current passage rules between the two or 
    even between EU members?
    
    As much as you might like to require someone to prove a negative - it's 
    generally understood that proposing that someone do so tends to be more 
    of a political debate trick than anything else.
    
    Looking back in history, immediately after 9/11 - arguably the biggest 
    provocation the US has received during the Internet era - 4 out of the 5 
    IETF meetings immediately after 9/11 were held in the US under the 
    increased travel scrutiny that we take for granted now and we adapted.  
    The current questions are or need to be:  What are the changes and can 
    we adapt.
    
    We have a US President that has made big claims and broad pronouncements 
    - but here's the thing.  He's not a dictator and he's bound by strong 
    laws and constitutional requirements that limit his reach.   Basing a 
    decision on whether or not to hold meetings in the US based on only what 
    Trump says and does vs what he might say and do vs looking at what 
    actually happens (e.g. travel restrictions held in abeyance due to 
    perceived constitutional violations) seems to be taking counsel of fears 
    rather than counsel of facts.
    
    I would suggest that we not cancel SF and use it to gain FACTS. I would 
    suggest that by the time SF comes around the bulk of changes (if any) 
    will have occurred and we will be able to quantify their impact on the 
    IETF participants in the scope of that meeting and whether future 
    meetings will need to be held elsewhere for a period of time or whether 
    we're able to adapt.  I would further suggest that the impact of having 
    one "bad" meeting would be minimal in the broader scheme of things vs 
    not having a consensus and agreement on both the actual problem and the 
    solution to said problem.
    
    
    Mike
    
    
    
    
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.