Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Wed, 05 April 2017 08:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740D71241FC for <>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 01:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4c3kHG0eBmH5 for <>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 01:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4696129412 for <>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 01:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1491380760; x=1491985560; 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=gySLDdQkgXaY0dn+jAUKlBNR/ RCiDXJf9a1uYClixGI=; b=AZn1u071U1HcG3SHh7G5JICb+haFi1EdDc4Qmi9hw NFR4te/ZYHScd4mw+k9Zi8ENwnRByCcnMaZADj9Ga/LMCdPtmRWiAdfLQDMq30Pa xNZkpN906x6byO5wUSygSbeNM80CM/M6aNKIbP20zJsqg2MxjjqPR/EgAJRTQ48p NQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon;; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=XAM3eh2KYDejYYehGKc5W8MBX/FwqgBNkrHTvQQP5wqZVDWvvWjQBqQWQSB/ IsPPwZi/PYRC4SjpK5VKs9xRnkSnzjcBQYqgPYhCWxb9CXMFNlx6YBVpz u4HDGWg/9oKBbKtjJ/tRbrA+mfTU5wTwvVf7lrfQDr9E0HYwBbeRfo=;
X-MDAV-Processed:, Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:26:00 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:25:59 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50005402809.msg for <>; Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:25:59 +0200
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
X-HashCash: 1:20:170405:md50005402809::qNop2TZFR+IA3GLZ:00001o7X
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:25:54 +0200
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
To: IETF <>, <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
References: <> <> <> <> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost> <> <> <> <20170404221042.GC4004@localhost> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 08:26:06 -0000

One important question here, same as we had in the case of Singapore.

If we cancel San Francisco, how much that is going to cost to the IETF for each of two planned meetings?

Furthermore, can the IAOC respond to this:

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?

I think the relevant information in the contract need to be disclosed and have it now on the table, otherwise we will be wasting the time discussing possibilities that are actually impossible to assume for the IETF …

My general position is:
1) I will prefer not cancelling already planned meetings.
2) I will prefer not “blocking” any regions or countries from future meetings, including US.
3) However, for already contracted meetings, if this is going to cost IETF thousands of dollars, we can’t afford that.
4) We must work with authorities to avoid people being banned for attending the meetings.

Maybe I’ve missed responses to some of my answers already, in any case, can the IAOC provide urgently those with a complete summary of the situation?


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Eliot Lear <>
Responder a: <>
Fecha: miércoles, 5 de abril de 2017, 6:39
Para: Nico Williams <>om>, Yoav Nir <>
CC: IETF <>rg>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <>es>, Jared Mauch <>
Asunto: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

    On 4/5/17 12:10 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
    > I do suspect that the U.S. will be a more difficult location for more
    > attendees than other locations.  Certainly the news we all see is not
    > encouraging as to hosting IETF meetings in the U.S.  This I don't deny.
    > Though it's also possible that this is becoming a self-reinforcing meme
    > and that we're just not seeing incidents in other countries in the news.
    > In any case, the U.S. certainly does not have a monopoly on the border
    > harasment business.
    Certainly people have had trouble getting into other countries, most
    notably Canada where an IAB member was refused entry.  But this isn't
    just news.  It is a series of declarations by the U.S. government of
    their intentions, and the IAOC has to plan ahead.  That's why Jared's
    request for data is simply not tenable *at this stage*.  If it turns out
    that things aren't so bad, the IAOC can react accordingly.  However, as
    I wrote in my original email, there is now good reason to believe that
    things will get worse, due to the European Parliament’s decision to
    require visas from U.S. citizens.
    > Some people may wish to boycott the U.S. by refusing to host events
    > there.  There is some precedent for such a boycott.  For example, some
    > time back an obscure agency of the Texas state government decided to
    > guard its surplus budget by policing public drunkenness at hotel bars,
    > which led to a number of conferences pulling out of Texas, and the
    > ensuing bad PR led the legislature to rein in said agency.
    > However, at the scale of a state/province the politics of boycotts is
    > generally not partisan, but at a national/global scale it tends to be
    > rankly partisan, and boycotts may not be productive and may be divisive,
    > and should be approached with care.  Here "care" means: get some
    > evidence of negative impact on participation.  
    We ALREADY have evidence, as some people couldn't make Chicago, and said
    so on this very list (and, by the way, were shamefully attacked and
    dismissed (no, it certainly wasn't you)).  What we don't have is an
    understanding of the order of magnitude of the impact, and that is going
    to be very hard to gather in so  fluid a situation with so long a
    lookahead.  The point, by the way, as I see it, is not to punish the
    U.S. but to hold a successful meeting (that is what the mtgvenue draft
    states as well).
    > Reducing frequency of
    > U.S. meetings is not a boycott, and is something the IETF has been doing
    > for a long time anyways.  Further reducing that frequency in the short
    > term would be perfectly fine, though it would also reduce opportunities
    > for gather the stats we really need to make a sound, non-partisan
    > decision to boycott if the stats warrant it.
    Turn this around: suppose we do keep the meeting in San Francisco, for
    instance, and some number of people cannot get there for whatever
    reason, or cannot otherwise function on an equal footing.  Would the
    IAOC then be attacked for having ignored the vast number of warnings
    that have been signaled?

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
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.