Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 04 April 2017 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 068D9126E3A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 tuuMkospXO0e for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59F3A12441E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C3CBE55; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:42:59 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j8-S8pxximiI; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:42:58 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.244.2.100] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 237A1BE38; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:42:58 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1491338578; bh=/zMykysDA2LJ4izeY8Pq9MQUJcs+GK9SRcvBooZSvO0=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=gDByk6hSrTsAegbifevdmxW6IeL2nGiEaeG+TgfhJOSG8NfEZxzPlSNVgoCZnW1M2 zHFRZWC4WLNkPhvXZN1XaDjT82Ti7ZODFAAJ7cHAWqIE4D6/1VWR+ZGP1Mv80gMyKe ivzoiiQm62USVQjNJ+6ihKl6uHJ5UMFAJTVZ/y0c=
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
References: <149096990336.4276.3480662759931758139.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9fee9874-1306-07a2-a84a-4e09381a5336@cisco.com> <E67FDB14-9895-48E0-A334-167172D322DB@nohats.ca> <20170403152624.GA11714@gsp.org> <93404c29-78ba-ff9b-9170-f5f2a5389a31@gmail.com> <E068F01A-B720-4E7A-A60F-AA5BDA22D535@consulintel.es> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <CAAQiQRcvu-BfBA_NEqZwXsHEn6ujpa2=w7P5Vu2f6GLXjKqkcA@mail.gmail.com> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <2987213d-075e-beff-64f8-d316709c404a@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:42:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="w6EO9HOl9Pp3N57859VlbxbDesN9Jtnqx"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jW4hZNAdXsGXOVDGQLOw_tIPW-Y>
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: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:43:05 -0000

Hi Nico,

On 04/04/17 21:24, Nico Williams wrote:
> My unstated point was that the US border situation is not really
> different from anywhere else.

I disagree. I think that as of now, of the places in which
we're likely to have face-to-face meetings, the uncertainty
with respect to rule-changes involved in future US meetings
is much higher than other places. Again, that's only in terms
of places in which we're likely to meet in the next N years.
That's a mega-negative for US-based meetings IMO.

S.