Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Thu, 26 May 2016 09:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E573A12D1D5 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wNdSFDdJTiBD for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5416612D0DB for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-MDAV-Processed:, Thu, 26 May 2016 11:12:19 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50000551799.msg for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:12:19 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Thu, 26 May 2016 11:12:19 +0200 (not processed: spam filter heuristic analysis disabled)
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.16.0.160506
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 11:12:17 +0200
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 09:12:23 -0000

I know similar situations it happened to many people. Just trying to make clear that even the country were we did more IETF meetings (up to now), is not respectful with many people, so taking decisions about banning specific venues must be very carefully considered. As it has been said, there is not a perfect venue, and we will find always reason for banning EVERY possible venue.

Do we want to follow that path?


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <> en nombre de Vinayak Hegde <>
Responder a: <>
Fecha: jueves, 26 de mayo de 2016, 11:03
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <>
CC: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
Asunto: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:22 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
><> wrote:
>> I believe everyone knows this but just in case: Actually, even having a visa to US doesn’t mean that you will be allowed to enter, even can be arrested and sent to jail just for trying if they believe that you lied in the visa process.
>> I want to explain one of the situations I’ve been and how this was EXPLAINED to me in a very rude way by an US immigration officer. Some years ago, traveling via Miami to Curacao for some LACNIC events, I was asked at the Miami immigration desk to go to a separate room for some special questioning. This happened to me in several consecutive trips to Curacao and BACK to my home, no sense at all. In all those situations, I was about to lose my next flight, specially one of the times, going back to home, which will had mean waiting for 24 hours. The immigration officers told me that I’m in a kind of third security check level (don’t recall exact wording).
>> I must say that all those interrogations were lacking of any kind of respect and threatening me up to the point of getting really afraid, some times even destroying parts of my belongings in my carry-on/computer bag. By the way, my TSA lock has been destroyed also several times despite it is a TSA so they have the key to open it without the need to destroying it, no sense at all, and I never got paid for it, despite I claimed.
>This is not a uncommon experience. I experienced something similar in
>LA on my first trip to the US several years back and almost missed my
>connecting flight - reached there a minute or two before doors closed.
>I was taken aside for special questioning. I had to justify why I was
>there (with invite letter). I was badly jetlagged after flying almost
>20 hrs.There was no access to water and officers were rude. Something
>similar happened to a friend whose first port of entry was in Boston.
>Thankfully further trips to the US were incident free. I hope things
>have improved now.
>-- Vinayak