Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input (off-topic)

Sandoche Balakrichenan <sandoche.balakrichenan@afnic.fr> Wed, 25 May 2016 08:17 UTC

Return-Path: <sandoche.balakrichenan@afnic.fr>
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 B4C9912B05A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 01:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 oUZfZlp5I1Qu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 01:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D4F312B047 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 01:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 7600128067F; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:17:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71461280613; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:17:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from zimbra.afnic.fr (hebe.prod-int.prive.th3.nic.fr [10.1.81.80]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701CDB38026; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:17:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.afnic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C50B2D7C11F; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:17:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from zimbra.afnic.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.afnic.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id ydCOjyqR3BIK; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:17:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.afnic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE042D7C118; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:17:19 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.afnic.fr
Received: from zimbra.afnic.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.afnic.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id A6LDlV2I1CVL; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:17:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ip-10-0-90-13.sa.vpn.nic.fr (ip-10-0-90-13.sa.vpn.nic.fr [10.0.90.13]) by zimbra.afnic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E174E2D7C117; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:17:18 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input (off-topic)
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <D3662363.190A96%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <CAP8yD=spam0tQdfD-ssA6y_n-cuugHtrHKwTYieSruo8SMg_VQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHkmkwtEtDk4sPv3GjkrSFqOdRV3HBA5i2_uZu3X2D4RxSF4wA@mail.gmail.com> <2e95fd51-23b8-39e7-d4ca-a9fc9d49559c@gmail.com> <CAHkmkwsf3YfFfR7jUHYnaw6dCrasMOazjbXPJRRhZS28k8HV0w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1605241405210.28372@uplift.swm.pp.se> <714DDDE2-562D-488A-AAAA-F8DE3C2CA97D@consulintel.es> <FE76F502-617E-4190-BFF5-649EC9CFECAC@consulintel.es> <57445A20.2060005@afnic.fr> <6.2.5.6.2.20160524122508.10392d10@resistor.net>
From: Sandoche Balakrichenan <sandoche.balakrichenan@afnic.fr>
Message-ID: <57455F8D.6010107@afnic.fr>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:17:17 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20160524122508.10392d10@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Pm8ufCr0xUQoT7EFlMlF5dHqtZg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 08:17:53 -0000

On 24/05/16 21:35, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Sandoche,
>
> I labeled my reply as off-topic as it is not directly related to the
> topic.
Looking at the plethora of issues that has been discussed, i do agree
that Visa issue has become a off-topic :-).
>
> At 06:41 24-05-2016, Sandoche Balakrichenan wrote:
>> But i would like to post a real issue here.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Hence, my suggestion is that IETF should take the visa issue also into
>> account when considering a venue.
>
> Please see Slide 25 at
> https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IAOC-Overview-IETF86-Final.pdf
==> If the Visa issue has been seriously taken into consideration by the
IAOC, i think we should never had an IETF in the US. Ask the number of
students/professionals from Asian and Arab Countries, the harrassment
they pass through from the US embassy just to get a Visa.
>   I don't know how the visa issue is handled in practice as I am not
> an IAOC member.
>
==> I am not here to complain. But, just wanted to point out that the
community that i previously mentioned has learned to adjust and accepted
it as a way of life. If the IAOC has to consider all participants issues
before considering a venue, then  i think it will be difficult to find
one in our planet.

Sandoche.