Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Melinda Shore <> Tue, 04 April 2017 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10291129459 for <>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q6K5mgMG1lEt for <>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA477129453 for <>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g2so163250132pge.3 for <>; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=IxJksATFi9UKpEJ0zclyGJWsjktGmUuOdhTyCIIChVk=; b=X+F6oFr++7D+Pkl3ZRmFaFUjZSuy0HysVNkRFhcKBsbUwZ3UsqdvNir04DmV4Jy8pg 8nzE7lHmDAfzI7dnQY8jLYnqnU9MhnHSSosIQKaYRbhsVshV5swmM3zqVi7ip8HyX2II 9e974OU3kSrVz5s5n6k9azNieGLjU/P6bxtCX6uTegFHQGLtz2Oh47sefL8KU4u94eW0 1XRJGkQO6T6QWZHQ3oOCKazdSv0ItD0DWKLrPjzEKxktx0fcckEinMI3w8Mbnk/CYKQF LnGR+gaDzveVGyZhLaA5leFS+WA2Vp5F6YD86MsQyC59gfhQVrTsWrW4rgtWfyBdTuOF w5sQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=IxJksATFi9UKpEJ0zclyGJWsjktGmUuOdhTyCIIChVk=; b=HKSM46dyJEVRnc/YgBcH+Zk288dFi8PMSj9ilUtaFxUkMWff8mioic7kxWXLypv70A oKEQo2Tourt4o87ZCc+XhBBa91q9yqmfbvLF3xAHmgN46Pv1LK6lhpf7ZaqHBUxOqC+Z JNWSCSGNHZdtxlNw0uaW2EJjjUQ9GUNht4HR42b4/LucpgXbubUWLwh4tDiKDiQdxLO2 Ar2u+qVo1Xw2Sr8kFZig5eBjKNE0f7WpdFGg2speOWkM8Ob/lsnFTNhkZHdKAwKBxotj wGGigGKibGE940k8iXvlZDyn4z9vi22CDVhuIJgL/ufqoU70K5WettkFh/Etg+FEq+Nq tVGg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2Sda/qZtrBjfuYVT/hpowjlibjHgNMi6vL/5/xO1hvwW6hL33B0rwwVOFcrZhUyA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id l1mr26559436pgo.59.1491349854217; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id m4sm33629786pfi.74.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost> <> <> <> <> <>
Cc: IETF Discussion <>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:50:50 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Bq7WX57qPOGgf4jg9foR6iHRB4uqViIjL"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 23:50:57 -0000

On 4/4/17 3:34 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> 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.

That's not comparable.  We know what the policy is concerning
Americans working in Canada, and that how you describe "meeting"
can affect whether or not it's considered to be work.  People
without the appropriate papers (whether it's citizenship, residence,
or a visa) are not permitted to work in Canada, period.  You should
know that before entering Canada.  (That said, I'm truly sorry you were
asked for evidence supporting the reason you gave for entering the

Here, we're talking about uncertainty about whether or not Canadian
citizens (for example) will be permitted to enter the US based on
religious beliefs or (in the case of naturalized citizens) country of
birth.  Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not, and it appears to be
independent of any publicly-announced policy.  Similarly, US citizens
do not have the right to enter the US (that's not that widely-known,
unfortunately) and some citizens and green card holders have been
turned away or detained when trying to re-enter the US because of
their religion or country of birth.  This is not comparable to a
situation in which someone trying to enter a country is asked to
provide evidence supporting their assertions about why they're entering.