Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

James Seng <james.seng@gmail.com> Sun, 29 January 2017 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <james.seng@gmail.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 004EA129446; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:08:45 -0800 (PST)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 sA8Hl7egDne6; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:08:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x232.google.com (mail-yb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::232]) (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 9978512958B; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:08:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x232.google.com with SMTP id w194so185938164ybe.0; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:08:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jX6EAQvNL9wU7Uo9lP1fJx3lk1T2A6aEaS5bwQHA3iI=; b=QQhe6EeHhiVvyFuJlpL6zJq7WOw9uPkJCIYIhH9VG0932FtPveXIW1PfuPFzfHMvAW o01Z8+HULkWsAxUIEltnTi4cCQ/n9zrRcpmmQZAIKVkPQEiOCX0CV9EsbCI5qRE2EXcg 9fTR4V8qEzhnWJFKuCOPsNu8Xq1uB53gWhh7kkg8oOHbXqoiJckawKAlQq0+y7s22XZ/ OeFw5ARCAsdHL4cl5DkyY0gq7kwXS3+iskDW4VlkGizZUVFZjtmpat5ncMu6XQBR7rz6 Sr61eC7gJ3GUQKGJfhsfH6P/pXTUTTbe96Yk52uZ6DCkBBjc3siGDZ2BPgONQ4NLurh8 Bc0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jX6EAQvNL9wU7Uo9lP1fJx3lk1T2A6aEaS5bwQHA3iI=; b=dR+a1KxjAg4r0VlMgBNb2PnuzMtF/Bm3K3JbajCZBQ+r5nf2AYzWdM8mrsQg00jH9P dthj6XC1UcJ1pO5QZ0l+Sy4TRMHXAGKG/d/r6vVKWvOIRWUeCDbwAvPfpm55Iell45Xj lPinXt36YiuHfYTPUqHLAcDRu1POGiJcuApkZF9HQA/6f2VH92tlY4AQA5DihiriJJmR sZ1d7nab1snMRStjhhb/yfNGAvWqJ/bnMzvZAv53U+Hg3UOzAB9jw6umUXqKUzUXRpOf OUUXFpXVlJ4Imh0G+NUI7BB80XYJl+ZXjX1p1O7LSASMa8QfKpHHd/Xf+4y4+OVmZ7a1 8sIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJRaG5HLXeAt5Mop1WOdEemzcnhuCav43OxLWlO7c4aGvDSBKm6lgesVZxDYLtf0d3jLx+nbg3vXVj/lg==
X-Received: by 10.37.6.195 with SMTP id 186mr8371927ybg.136.1485716921861; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:08:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.226.21 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:08:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+ruDECdMAC2PQqibqQijc-nLHUxOGw0h-ZYyh8FnZZaeZ8sTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <955df2106aa2e12cefbd450be022e779.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <D36D49EE.35116%jefft0@remap.ucla.edu> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05266663BF@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <CA+ruDECdMAC2PQqibqQijc-nLHUxOGw0h-ZYyh8FnZZaeZ8sTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Seng <james.seng@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 03:08:11 +0800
Message-ID: <CA+ruDEBHyzk5cg5Vmq-anKJTxLkZpHrb9APwkfbDGn6FeFzR_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f5b0a5d4d4d0547406dcf
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7YkLFlZFsB9Fi8p2kd1TaVinkk8>
Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, "Thompson, Jeff" <jefft0@remap.ucla.edu>, "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: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:08:45 -0000

I rescind my previous comment that the scenario I painted is rhetorical.

None of our US fellow IETFers here have any moral authority to talk about
"inclusive" ever again.

-James Seng

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:44 AM, James Seng <james.seng@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Since after 9-11, things have change a lot for United States[1].
>
> Especially for TSA, I remember going to SFO the first time after 9-11, it
> took me 2 hours just to clear the security and I missed my flight. I also
> remember pre 9-11, I could get into US for less than 15-20mins.
>
> Now, for my American friends who pay in the price in time, let me tell you
> what we non-American citizen has to do to get into US after 9-11. We have
> been tagged, photographed, fingerprinted, all our 10 fingers every time we
> have to enter US. We have been systematically profiled, often by racial or
> nationality, and some of us have to go through enhanced body-to-body search
> everytime we cross security. I was put in a "Muslim" basket been a
> Malaysian for a while so ... And we have to do it with a smile because if
> any of us pull of a stunt like Aaron Tobey[2], we could be denied our entry
> and possibility forever.
>
> My wife complains that the over the last decade I have put on a lot of
> weight and asked me to check my photos. Unfortunately, I don't like selfie
> nor do I like to take pictures of myself. But I told her not to worry as
> TSA has a complete profile of me becoming fat over the years.
>
> Today, we all saw a US President may-to-be calling up to forbid Muslim to
> enter US, to build walls to prevent people from the south, who threaten to
> get even tougher to foreigners.
>
> So by the same principle that Jeff is advocate, that we hold IETF meeting
> where "law declares some people less valid", I prognosticate we may no
> longer able to hold our meetings in US.
>
> [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/united-states-after-911-6-thing
> s-have-changed-2001-2093156
>
> [2] http://dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/how-to-fight-the-tsa
>
> ps: This is rhetorical to put any doubt in rest. I love US even though
> getting there is still a pain for me.
>
> -James Seng
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:34 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <MHammer@ag.com>;
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thompson, Jeff
>> > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:55 AM
>> > To: Dan Harkins
>> > Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org; Ietf@Ietf. Org
>> > Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF
>> > 100
>> >
>> > On 2016/5/26, 21:11:51, "Recentattendees on behalf of Dan Harkins"
>> > <recentattendees-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of dharkins@lounge.org>;
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >  I would also like to suggest that the ability of certain members to
>> > >bring their family on a vacation that coincides with an IETF should not
>> > >be a governing factor in venue selection. Many people like to launder a
>> > >business trip into a family vacation (myself
>> > >included!) but that's not why the IETF exists and it should have no
>> > >bearing on where we meet.
>> >
>> > So then, the IETF policy would read ³The IETF may hold meetings in
>> countries
>> > where the law declares some people less valid. If you are such a
>> person, then
>> > the IETF recommends that to avoid trouble with the law you should hide
>> who
>> > you are, including not bringing your family.²
>> >
>> > Is this the organization that the IETF is going to be?
>> >
>> > - Jeff
>> >
>>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> Is there any country in the world that meets the standard your comment
>> implies should be the IETF policy? Is this a case of perfection being the
>> enemy of good? Perhaps it is a case of perfection being the enemy of
>> reality. I don't know what IETF policy should be but I do recognize that
>> there are very real limitations that constrain choices. I'll also point out
>> that the choices made will constrain the choices of participants. I'm not
>> advocating for any particular choice by the IETF with regard to meeting
>> locations.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Recentattendees mailing list
>> Recentattendees@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -James Seng
>



-- 
-James Seng