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

Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 08:46 UTC

Return-Path: <vinayakh@gmail.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 C1C4512D137 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 01:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 ysMUOaelL3Iv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 01:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x229.google.com (mail-vk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87BDE12B076 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 01:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id c189so55341319vkb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 01:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=VJ8JPnIMhIvBdqCdOyMQJEGI7gqEwIRZuV+hxq6CA3E=; b=XRRKrdGooOgAf6v4f4TZnHg0u7QH36ajnlVtcAHdDZiydZGhK24NOSlbxkiJNrCeBD 4h2KfO1NVjHJVZlW2MkEtltON6OZ5BDkzeXRyNXaHwBfvaUV1q8S/9sjkN/4+AFoRu81 oyqDMDp7xcSewwMPPh+E3dqoRNVuYieYUx8LWq3vlzMXx0a4lZW9b6aiPrhyaMh3KeGz C+WeIS5eJCP/t15Id0I98V0757jIlqM3E/V9aD7ugm0a+FpV8aCA/2u6jcWCVeWFYPV6 lYad6OIaDbF7NURgWfMH/TCJkm7xti3HR1D2rq31Bu++uz3IdCLhAkKSuuE0Qq2A1v/P iOJw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=VJ8JPnIMhIvBdqCdOyMQJEGI7gqEwIRZuV+hxq6CA3E=; b=KpGk8nceuDGPFhPq0rz4o6UeFMm/XTNkqu+BafH5HRO/xwj+mz66UObQAz3oN7Ob1A Up+IcvKywz8xM04NJC6aTIQ1cH981fwx2iG+jrXcld1lDtSAT2U6tU4zunEX1dhv8U5M w66cY3otPF+IWfisSeeJzH8q581Rba7XJwQ8Y/IVHGR1Va51IkzfqxxeKLfjeCMScPhc G0XiqM8NfUjK9IM4c2xa7Gzbk5mq8blPjyYY6D+dc6y7G0hOCUbt5j8YfGmxhgIgw0Uu RlXtlBJmSKVvKnfUIzFX66yb4BmKDxga6enm2f4cy/ubv4OYDFrw836bFeoF4hPxogL4 fk4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIKB/ZbkmZZRiLAB22IiHVe7gs+DIIBTfhTPUlItIMnMT4+dAYjePB/0kbAvkAuJ2Jv+sDSXAzvXZTodA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.159.36.168 with SMTP id 37mr1607403uar.136.1464165965524; Wed, 25 May 2016 01:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.103.18.7 with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 01:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <57455F8D.6010107@afnic.fr>
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> <57455F8D.6010107@afnic.fr>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:16:05 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKe6YvPHYx_OA0fqBxvj+keh+LtQ22WYDGMh-S+7E3F9h4AFTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input (off-topic)
From: Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com>
To: Sandoche Balakrichenan <sandoche.balakrichenan@afnic.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WAE8h8gp_996q-ocv58A2FNXs8M>
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
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 08:46:09 -0000

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Sandoche Balakrichenan
<sandoche.balakrichenan@afnic.fr> wrote:
> 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.

I think the visa issue affects a large portion of participants
(non-US/non-EU), yet it is hardly discussed as much on the IETF
mailing lists. I hope that the IAOC is taking that into consideration.
I also think it is rather more important than issues about getting
families to the IETF (which I believe is a perk and not a necessity).
I think we need to focus more on getting participants to the physical
meetings.

We talk about sharing the "travel pain". Visas is an important pain
point for number of Non-EU/Non-US countries.

-- Vinayak