Fwd: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

"Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com> Wed, 12 April 2017 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
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 06D0E129AD5; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=thinkingcat.com
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 sohvSJGBJSvy; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28BDE12947E; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2483D000083D; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=thinkingcat.com; h=from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=thinkingcat.com; bh=t82zclG/SkjSJS t+nt8Ps0CKCeg=; b=inZ9tp/IOybI/dn+nIOXX0d5grjpXwj+HY131cJ+OgQ4bk mU9oDNv5YRWsQntlDEqVYGATCX9ikz9fcJHaFj80d3wivbsnXjc2A2jJyoXHGjO7 e2GdPdEUZlmpxssdlNqnTM0dLBYS/ZQ6TM48Hjy8FL8ab79KGxk4N5HhiqjSk=
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (pool-173-72-147-193.clppva.fios.verizon.net [173.72.147.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: leslie@oceanpurl.net) by homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EF33D000083C; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
To: "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Cc: IAOC@ietf.org
Subject: Fwd: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:40:17 -0400
Message-ID: <F21BFB22-BA7D-411B-BF13-141CD6886621@thinkingcat.com>
References: <149204035801.15694.8437554373033456064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_96A31A1A-19EE-4A76-9C48-081116344796_="
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ui4XJ7F-ZHjxDUa8HPl9XsTFBB8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 12 Apr 2017 23:40:23 -0000

FYI — this is the information as we have it.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Forwarded message:

> From: IAOC Chair <iaoc-chair@ietf.org>
> To: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> Subject: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:39:18 -0700
>
> On March 31, 2017, we put out a request for input on experiences with 
> travel to the recent IETF meeting in the US, and solicited information 
> pertinent to plans to attend IETF meetings within or outside the US in 
> the coming years.  We have had over 350 responses to the 
> questionnaire, and we appreciate each and every one of them!   We did 
> not gather the data in such a way for it to reflect a representative 
> sample of the IETF community, or of potential meeting attendees. But 
> we did gain insights from those who responded that we did not have 
> before.
>
> Over 40% of the respondents said they had attended 20 or more IETF 
> meetings, and over 50% of them said they were authors of active 
> working group documents.  Slightly more than 40% stated US residency, 
> and just less than 60% said they were not US-resident.
>
> There was a noted impact of the recent changes to US travel policies 
> and procedures.  Of the respondents living outside of the US who did 
> NOT attend the IETF meeting in Chicago, a few were denied visas or 
> entry into the US, and more than 30 said they did not come because of 
> concerns about US travel restrictions.  On the other hand 45 people 
> said they were not troubled by the US situation (and presumably chose 
> not to come for other reasons).
>
> For those who did travel to IETF 98 in Chicago, the written comments 
> were illuminating:  most people had no issues (for some, even a 
> smoother border crossing than usual); some people experienced the 
> expected flutter over visa approvals as things were in flux as the US 
> Executive Order and court stays played out, but were eventually able 
> to come.
>
> The general comments on meeting in the US played along the same lines 
> as has been shared on the IETF discussion list:  people are variously 
> for moving all meetings out of the US, or adamantly against, or 
> somewhere in between, each position supported by good reasons.
>
> The IAOC is continuing to gather data on travel to the US, concerns 
> about traveling outside of it, and what alternatives are possible for 
> IETF 102.  Our focus is currently on whether holding IETF 102 in San 
> Francisco is the best option to meet the needs of IETF work, 
> recognizing that we cannot predict the future.  While it may take 
> several weeks to allow for review and negotiation of any alternatives 
> (if applicable), we are moving as quickly as possible because we 
> realize that people will need time to plan their travel.
>
>
> Leslie, for the IAOC.