Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Nico Williams <> Tue, 04 April 2017 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61D91294F7 for <>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.295
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.295 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dLczUFZ-5iUo for <>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DF32127419 for <>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0A4A00400B; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to;; bh=7Lo4/ZHAuOJqVi KkwBY1L9hlkYo=; b=EcnPZtyIWrlI58L7iGJlV2Eg987DLP+InJfn2R6H/0CZTl mm020eVpjM2vXCmGjZn4Bh+tOx4tXiv6NZqYnMaBy9xUe6XK+mwws4MHciX09yqb +pnlF/02X2M6nxpHCZXGnWASAeYIYWOU6aZv4iBt7ouHaAzb+LPV2ow1005Ow=
Received: from localhost ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B0D9A00012B; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:24:47 -0500
From: Nico Williams <>
To: Andrew Newton <>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Message-ID: <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
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 20:29:27 -0000

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 01:43:12PM -0500, Andrew Newton wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Nico Williams <> 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.

My unstated point was that the US border situation is not really
different from anywhere else.  YMMV.  Stats would be nice, but I suspect
there are no reliable stats available, though individual organizations
like the IETF can probably track how many of *its* participants are
harassed at the various countries where it has held conferences.

Perhaps the IETF could gather and publish such statistics going forward.
Though given the relatively fickle nature of border enforcement (I
imagine it tends to be reactive as well as proactive, so recent events
probably tend to affect policy), stats may not be terribly predictive.