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

James Seng <> Fri, 27 May 2016 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83BA712D12F; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XgZeRKLBKD-4; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC1E012D0E0; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k23so193562093oih.0; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jK32o7s9JRwmOSol5ttzA+M8glhx60hjIHR0f2j6/Y0=; b=ZevsvUMUIMgjpv4zdxL5sj+svS8JtzeaOsAako5RjdzUzVRo30QX4WHgPHSbDEXWZ5 SEaRGHtFbsHd6w4BUXHU8LgmsMwi4HHsOj1CDdCkjTh7zmT4TrAf+AdrDpAlOmVzIETD FjNIcSsVqiLzYgzqswqI4YZzaPeBWrYmRYma+kqinOaFX3aQ0zNHGbEIOSFwHO49VQOZ UddRbereM4DU6Yesg6TyEboHs98mkx4DBtice7c19L5uRk4AzMbiSd+seM1ZNYd9rc3+ F0aqiYoa2QQ5vDO6DkPoc1w1zFia5PVMiNCZ2WKnh/LKxXEYwk5QhkdnX5PrzST/Ipq0 0mHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jK32o7s9JRwmOSol5ttzA+M8glhx60hjIHR0f2j6/Y0=; b=BoTyEJMtqVApwTN5bcHO/NDmr7eKsKEVorvMqRW5DvYQuBguSyyh8UnUS6UolzQ3fo Mv5o4QZMgWhQVK6FBgdNNnxoYIPiiFgi+cpcAzanCtloeCS8DfjykPSfKnxImw1sMFPZ B5LmxWYMCwQAf3XjCADx5W6sjDTldP81NqL5CY5h2FLlYYreJjexQMeHSfxegJ+5TGpl 5YMS8O1dHRUuzWJEWHExiga9W7dmiqWNlzz4EQUtkNREZjZaGKxlWqEvBY2CwJd896vd kpqIatw13SHTGxXzCtyzaD1XwfCmcPpwBX40Er1x2FWDj4qv/K2nfzhe8usSu0jewir9 Y56g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKSonrm2gXynu3lmmgPf3NUcnvxqWeTBl5tLEXAJBCq2wLxIlGRg9lgHzaYiPbAGxz3dcUOGpee4/TbPA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id j139mr10493885oib.100.1464385520911; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: James Seng <>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 05:44:51 +0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113df3ecc9cbf60533d9d202
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Thompson, Jeff" <>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <>
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: Fri, 27 May 2016 21:45:24 -0000

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.



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) <>

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf [] On Behalf Of Thompson, Jeff
> > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:55 AM
> > To: Dan Harkins
> > Cc:; 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"
> > < on behalf of>
> > 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

-James Seng