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

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 25 May 2016 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52CA12DAB5 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.216
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=eFH4Rw6y; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=R9pOHe2i
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m08Su9HAAMh4 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 04:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1E612DAA9 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 04:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4PBMp5Q005274 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 May 2016 04:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1464175384; x=1464261784; bh=W+JfQNoMWk8oVOLBlvcHi9cPhCOcUA7aOU33ZCiXJxI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=eFH4Rw6ylfjz+KBEGmpV4gvv3HjMvvoaBU+YYoGTY+nnZ8XAQWNY/bzJrQxC8QaUl Q74oZsyHPAsNhbMrElL9Fs7V4cKXiOhjsHvfmtEMD3adMbuKxAvAZ6H1b053yGkdA1 OY5uJ7bgFxzulI/7h1DsOwY7oHE7zLGHEjQSXOZs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1464175384; x=1464261784;; bh=W+JfQNoMWk8oVOLBlvcHi9cPhCOcUA7aOU33ZCiXJxI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=R9pOHe2ix+Zq8+ZGIFV6NM2okHrID67SA5dY9NZAveIQVdBt10V0AUJ5M7TOzClpp hlX6YdvqqgIVr9v1Fx2yOKsy/j4XftL978Gp99zvhFoHUvPcbdPwXQRKxe85ssJaZQ BBZtsyjEHoBslCZBRESw5VMKh1wcOGP8qOt9hCa8=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 04:21:47 -0700
To: Vinayak Hegde <>, Sandoche Balakrichenan <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input (off-topic)
In-Reply-To: <CAKe6YvPHYx_OA0fqBxvj+keh+LtQ22WYDGMh-S+7E3F9h4AFTQ@mail.g>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:23:11 -0000

Hi Vinayak,
At 01:46 25-05-2016, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
>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
>We talk about sharing the "travel pain". Visas is an important pain
>point for number of Non-EU/Non-US countries.

I read the first quoted paragraph as meaning that non-US/non-EU IETF 
participants hardly discuss about visa issues on this mailing 
list.  There were 20 messages to the "drop" 
list.  None of those messages were from non-US/non-EU IETF 
participants with concerns about visa issues.

At 01:17 25-05-2016, Sandoche Balakrichenan wrote:
>==> 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.

The issue being discussed on has political implications.

S. Moonesamy