Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 10 April 2017 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 93B44128B38 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 3qtyrj3rL4A2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 538A7126CF6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.3.130] (c-73-222-64-208.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.222.64.208]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v3AM43Dc031258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:04:03 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1491861844; bh=p9EWvfzT3vsTy/C4lYE7xm36MGXiy4v/yneqbl+vpLM=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=B45FiVcIUqVSiNdpIkIS+baF/48FePJXAh3o3d7QRi8YNbzAMkyJzlnjeIVWjBqRl UCNGgkNJf5zcKT4n6zYc+10AD4Wm6GfcSA8fqR9jb6iWxJNuC/r6Tnrv3/ZnuYzU9s qCqC1EN41vd7tB5R2UR1JhyjvEcMuTIZVx5FpcgM=
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <9fee9874-1306-07a2-a84a-4e09381a5336@cisco.com> <E67FDB14-9895-48E0-A334-167172D322DB@nohats.ca> <20170403152624.GA11714@gsp.org> <93404c29-78ba-ff9b-9170-f5f2a5389a31@gmail.com> <E068F01A-B720-4E7A-A60F-AA5BDA22D535@consulintel.es> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <CAAQiQRcvu-BfBA_NEqZwXsHEn6ujpa2=w7P5Vu2f6GLXjKqkcA@mail.gmail.com> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost> <20170404211526.GA25253@gsp.org> <003F08E0-D80E-40F7-AB15-6588B7B140CF@tzi.org> <20170410180555.GA20454@gsp.org> <AF3B5F0A-EEA7-402D-B61E-EDE6CE2AE16C@tzi.org>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <8546635c-f838-e7f7-a5ec-3a855a14c0f9@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:01:42 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AF3B5F0A-EEA7-402D-B61E-EDE6CE2AE16C@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7mt-pi5uUhmRnhM4VacMD7cnffI>
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: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 22:01:54 -0000

On 4/10/2017 11:54 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> “In the short to medium term, I think the answer is going to be avoiding all but absolutely essential travel to the United States,” Hall [a UK lawyer] added. “I’m aware of at least one conference on cyber security and ethical hacking which switched to Toronto at short notice because of these concerns.”


That is, arguably looking like the safest, reasonable line of advice.

However for an organization like the IETF that seeks to meet in a 
variety of places around the globe, things could get even more 
challenging if there is a pattern of retaliatory actions by other 
countries, against visitors from the US.

(This is separate from the existing concern for long-term visitors to 
the US' question of leaving for a meeting and having problems returning 
to the US.)

It is fast looking as if the ability to sustain a large and very 
well-attended network of interconnected remote hubs might become a 
necessity rather than merely an appealing alternative...

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net