Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Tue, 04 April 2017 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@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 CC6DF128B44 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 N2V5nKoLWG98 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22b.google.com (mail-oi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) (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 50350127097 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id r203so181719444oib.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
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=3p+d/exkH4mlpgc1V2jzBWduOXufW7Gz8eNnAlze/QU=; b=W3cUmxatmhqVId+Y22l1BiHeKSsnQgng17foiIy9SFvtEodjzXNfa+ywPday8qfGQJ kBz9vJLWN9gUzllK3734dJGqjAsnNKYU4NBMTwbHfPDRE386G+89A3JQ2hrtBf0lagTV 8M3+CDMv82suw4qoPFANWKfafV7VH4Jg3g0rA2/hJiiX7lO9RzjPgzNpCrIUsBz8jnXo fggkQs71CksPwTh2HSkyxs76xsX1Lm9UVbrKrBk57kAJOAGMZEKZi5jGK4eYUnDdcN4O hZsounBDlpVkfrx7hkZUTa6bxqdyCI1aNSJKMQ9zljaEbPSHYKE6ut8dZ5sJmhXN/iCt uqrg==
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=3p+d/exkH4mlpgc1V2jzBWduOXufW7Gz8eNnAlze/QU=; b=pyYnZzIJXhSZrCHdoK1VSXEEt+zhwwWzO1Lfem6niBYGaE2EtxZ8FQQpprT64SDmKY 5pq/3lcDDE5eFtV+rwginbmgMAykDLRIYEnBOILY6iQ4d2TrFBzJ1lIN9Wns8EvNaxag 9LAitutq+nNAAhluKU/CBAUJNPCU0uXzSOeRCw4hnE+8lNr+6bP/hysyI1cb2ziuaEnx /+DkS+rXyTsFE23Qxmy7iOUSj/+XnP8T4l/erFvhQcj+NhdoRSQd06QtDgUMiGe5EJ35 RiBjRmFifq6vYaFywQDwDBhiKy78AG6huEEcB9E7ndIEhAoW1EmcCL19i+mL4vZe5R++ qtIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0qQAdPg5ENAP2o4mjc6yaQvr0sYIcwyJ8atouihcmq2jFfh6JZ7moqn58eyRd4wotb6euPvjV7+7Vy7Q==
X-Received: by 10.157.53.10 with SMTP id o10mr12682896otc.50.1491348908606; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.231.201 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <b814561c-939a-51b8-b999-d08cad0c15bd@gmail.com>
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> <CAAQiQRcvu-BfBA_NEqZwXsHEn6ujpa2=w7P5Vu2f6GLXjKqkcA@mail.gmail.com> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost> <2987213d-075e-beff-64f8-d316709c404a@cs.tcd.ie> <20170404204617.GC16732@puck.nether.net> <e70a5f90-02b1-7ec5-30dd-9cd7f20821b1@cisco.com> <b814561c-939a-51b8-b999-d08cad0c15bd@gmail.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:34:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA=duU3SgL8ZGV2YDv4SmbhBqSygYyECwYd93YUjMaD2Pf6F_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e0e26ef1f08054c5fb91d
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KtBFlo6X6EGHmEqvGNd57OeVidk>
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 23:35:12 -0000

At least once, I was questioned extensively when going from the US to a
meeting in Canada. I had to show evidence of the meeting and my itinerary
and convince them that I wasn’t entering Canada to take work away from a
Canadian. That said, I still support holding meetings in Canada.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 4/4/17 1:56 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > Jared, man, read the newspapers.
>
> Well, there's certainly that (the Canadian paper, the Globe and
> Mail, has done a lot of excellent work on tracking down incidents
> where Canadians have had problems entering the US, as one example).
>
> I think the broader problem is that there's just a lot of uncertainty
> and inconsistency, and even if it were possible to collect an
> authoritative list of incidents it wouldn't capture the problem that
> many people crossing the border in and out of the US these days don't
> really know what to expect.  It's one thing when you're not sure
> whether or not your bag of dog food will be permitted in and an
> entirely different one when you're not sure whether or not you'll
> be turned back.
>
> I don't know how to capture that uncertainty in a way that will
> satisfy the skeptics but it does seem to me to be a very serious
> problem with respect to planning.
>
> Melinda
>
>
>