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

Alexander Nevalennyy <> Tue, 31 January 2017 10:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47499129408 for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:43:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.689
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.689 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, T_MIME_MALF=0.01] 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 WHrIezRrZpyr for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:43:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A1A31293EC for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:43:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w20so160395913qtb.1 for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:43:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Q4Kwud84opMHbCq00poY3LYhaxQPJiB5kCKdMfwpSD8=; b=tfRajNweIjsG+G+rp016l04blnvu2kzoULi8zzS9vVbks4iDzDXh3KdpxdUJG6dH+T 6NuPP21cUoQ6l/d5MGab+pM5rR6eDMIzHgKienIWnkHSDqrDsAI4ICMJk8595g4IJorZ Xqay996bvlgPwLQa1+0lrUoAJ0m8ISB37SC5LlQ6d4Zl5SQG0u2etstZeAFNeSxiijGG zho/6v5hUkZcOjlBYZSvFz5LPTsorVIXGBedsYXYylc+bZkuSDXIj1Teo7H+BOHS6kTz fFKwPZGtCerZxYwm96Y5miuMD21Z8aQNE2UwCtKafwtrrecXF96ODO3GOwcipvNBMHRg guaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Q4Kwud84opMHbCq00poY3LYhaxQPJiB5kCKdMfwpSD8=; b=iBJ4YFncy0gvyyTEYb86sI1Z0AlJDG9JD2eAX3r8FWiJEP4/kuZl0xFIWEKwELsc0p AOx3w4i+Xpzl2hiPN0I3hrkYkj+l23imuB0VYrkk3HZt+LBO8fvcHGgFkaOlmSi2KX9s nMEji9shH2zfhR6evD3z1y/VyMCV1hSSoQQxh6Xp4WU/W7jnLvYRzYqAzbKfKoDoMIOC UxmiXlWM8hYAn0PWK72whOWrYA4AskNxtk9+poohz6YPPXckV/P7F7aksTi5LaUc0FDN aLYPtcoOA7jtYnbTqHW0mFqomMQ3MMehPCsmkIZ6tNbWCgfMWroxx9CIw0VJtLsku+8U bKtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKUm0rhNtDSHFQu7Pvh9fFM/EgXPdSgQ7nhyFjRq9AtmAocS3jMP+D0Eg43smGk/kR72S64SVWtEis99Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w7mr23684034qtc.287.1485859389976; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:43:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:43:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:43:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alexander Nevalennyy <>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:43:09 +0300
Message-ID: <>
Subject: RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114203d6203924054761998f
Archived-At: <>
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: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:43:14 -0000

Hi all,
In my opinion there are nothing to worry, Trump is trying to protect US
citizens. After 4 months FBI and Homeland security will make white lists
... Can anybody  help with contacting ISOC to take fellowship? . I wrote
twice to them without any results.

31.01.2017 12:49 пользователь <> написал:

Send ietf mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ietf digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for
      IETF 100 (Mani, Mehdi)


Message: 1
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:49:15 +0000
From: "Mani, Mehdi" <>
To: Naeem Khademi <>om>,
        "" <>
Cc: "" <>rg>, "Ietf@Ietf.
        Org" <>
Subject: RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for
        IETF 100

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear all,

As an european holding a french passport with my origin coming from Iran i
cannot travel to US with this executive order of Mr Trump even if i work
for an American company.

So i beleive as well that meeting venues should not be any more in US with
such ? discriminatory law.


De : Recentattendees [] De la part
de Naeem Khademi
Envoy? : mardi 31 janvier 2017 10:44
? :
Cc :; Ietf@Ietf. Org <>
Objet : Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:58 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<>> wrote:
If we include such a cancellation clause, we should also have an insurance
contract to cover the non-refundable cost such as flights and hotels that
some participants book 1 year in advance in order to have it cheaper.

The next IETF in the US after Chicago, would be in July 2018 in SF. I don't
think it's even possible to buy a flight ticket for that time as of now
(most airlines wouldn't do such pre-sale). So, it's pretty much possible to
relocate that meeting elsewhere with causing no loss to anyone's
already-made plans.



-----Mensaje original-----
De: Recentattendees <<mailtomailto:>> en nombre de "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <<>>
Responder a: <<>>
Fecha: lunes, 30 de enero de 2017, 20:57
Para: James Seng <<>>
CC: "<>" <<>>, "Thompson,
Jeff" <<>>, Dan Harkins <<>>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org<mailto:
Ietf@Ietf.%20Org>" <<>>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100


    Seeing as the email you chose to quote was a response to my email from
May 27th, 2016, I?m left trying to decide if you were responding
     to my comments or that earlier thread in general. I still stand by my
statements even if it means that the ultimate IETF decision is not to hold
meetings in the USA ? I think your prognostication unfortunately was
correct. I was not being rhetorical in my
     earlier comments ? We, as participants engaged in technical efforts
across national boundaries need to figure out pragmatic ways of ensuring
our efforts and activities continue to function despite decisions by
specific localities.

    Looking forward, it might be reasonable for IETF to include a
cancellation clause based on the government of the host country engaging in
an act like the ban
     (after the contract has been signed.)


    From: James Seng [<mailto:>]

    Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:08 PM
    To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
    Cc: Thompson, Jeff; Dan Harkins;<mailtolto:>gt;; Ietf@Ietf. Org
    Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for
IETF 100

    I rescind my previous comment that the scenario I painted is rhetorical.

    None of our US fellow IETFers here have any moral authority to talk
about "inclusive" ever again.

    -James Seng

    On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:44 AM, James Seng <
<>> wrote:
    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.

JrB2jdPIk&s=m-fQdaqbZqcgauIkHJiSBFctkXe2PnBO7avBpi4zyAg&e=> <

q9Kg7jrXVDP9xV9bfxvKfOojJBnA_lfkqadBYdg&e=> <

    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) <<>> wrote:

    > -----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
    > 100
    > On 2016/5/26, 21:11:51, "Recentattendees on behalf of Dan Harkins"
    > <<mailto:recentattendees-> 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
    > >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 ?The IETF may hold meetings in
    > 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.?
    > Is this the organization that the IETF is going to be?
    > - 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.


    Recentattendees mailing list<><https


    -James Seng

    -James Seng

    Recentattendees mailing list<><https

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <


Subject: Digest Footer

ietf mailing list


End of ietf Digest, Vol 104, Issue 129