Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Tue, 04 April 2017 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@hxr.us>
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 E23FC129498 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hxr-us.20150623.gappssmtp.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 7G5RM-lkvIOU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (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 3694412426E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id d2so40865318oig.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hxr-us.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N4sV0DASMeHwn88DUc+36lCOUM9XEbFK71Bk9tRmAcs=; b=1zgkVGtcUX5JSuKIxvbCTicz8HT/isMOVQuhOehIgnGilYb7S5z+pFNA8PMwH1aBYF fQn0oMI/bCbHU7p4kdB7gRwdmjG57bGAeMRrpS/JTm/bFGXWudEibXUrVrH7YdnAzeNU qEJr7zu7gnb46ExjZn63XmOJCKs4juYHfrMW5lwJ7EV2xlZmF00FlY0RSsCTPYk12vRx XgdkPwICpmfOxTUbamur5zjyhTtXRgJeHDz2wQIiEuEHAg6VW/OX52SzDYV+mLe1uwzx bn+V2RRwhLfyWebTeFsCAb65MLpIEBCSb8p3SrE6yFWRl8C/u10LYl/3xTlygVbMNKkW 7qtA==
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=N4sV0DASMeHwn88DUc+36lCOUM9XEbFK71Bk9tRmAcs=; b=Ol7quAy/uuIp0tqIvZNqSRvDEE083EV8WbjBzw46EedXYvDpfQZ9NwAm35rZD8Cet5 RabfAmqGp8HfyYMbgTe96ib6KwBnWnMZx21vDnRiv5MSavXBixl9E4KQbxIgJhaxVUhf Yi8VV0QKYJbAaWvIN2CjngCnG5vaLUKZJNZCFXyCZq8gfupeQ0P2Bspg1pEQs6A+k66F 1Q1xt6yxGsDPcbG8QaAh6u8LkI+dvNoJFioiHgU6uXXQN2Nngie+U4RN1HEIol2DjFo7 feTaa0ZbYC0lizwLK8IXCLGLTIdmEtvthQZR6DJqCPbWKAnUwLSlMyMmlLAlCeRvCqTe 2GaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4bI9i9fWVTFnw22TwdshYZVI4dxLy1ocEsWy9/k7aTCwdu7iEZdwrmt1gEeTBVqJncWoUCF6n7KxE4OA==
X-Received: by 10.157.60.231 with SMTP id t36mr141901otf.193.1491331393457; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.30.132 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [192.252.241.5]
In-Reply-To: <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost>
References: <149096990336.4276.3480662759931758139.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <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>
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:43:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAQiQRcvu-BfBA_NEqZwXsHEn6ujpa2=w7P5Vu2f6GLXjKqkcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GUHlXqPZqGfpajSdOSxBqkb8LzA>
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: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:43:16 -0000

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> All that said, I've been harassed by Customs in Japan and Canada, and I
> have heard harassment stories in Argentina (where I hail from) and
> elsewhere.  My impression and experience is that Europeans customs are
> the least likely to harass visitors.

If we are going to base our decision on anecdotal experiences, my
worst encounters have all been in Europe. I don't think that means
anything other than my worst encounters have an an odd pattern. I also
know people who have been detained and denied entry into Canada
because the Canadians believed them to be violent criminals. They
weren't, but because the Canadians have arrest records but not
conviction/acquittal records from other countries there tend to be
misunderstandings (btw, the US does this as well, not picking on
Canada).

In my opinion, statistics will better inform this discussion.

-andy