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

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 1/29/17 11:08 AM, James Seng wrote:
> 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.

   I don't derive my moral authority from my government and you have no
standing to decide whether I wield it or not.

   Moral preening has no place in the IETF. Please stop.

   Dan.

> -James Seng
>
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:44 AM, James Seng <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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-things-have-changed-2001-2093156
>     <http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/united-states-after-911-6-things-have-changed-2001-2093156>
>
>
>     [2] http://dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/how-to-fight-the-tsa
>     <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)
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         > -----Original Message-----
>         > From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Thompson, Jeff
>         > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:55 AM
>         > To: Dan Harkins
>         > Cc: [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>; 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"
>         > <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         > 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
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     -James Seng
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -James Seng