Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Thu, 13 April 2017 18:38 UTC
Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
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 409D51315BE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.802
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.802 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
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 6C2wl-J3Cbtt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E9661315C0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.226]) by resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id yjcAckbzwbempyjdQcSVSW; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:38:24 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20161114; t=1492108704; bh=QBnpMvwBRRsScWIkldAe1J2/6N6vAxcLDF4jekq4RFU=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=hVidVourwM+s9Z2+nwemfjk1SDjbPFOHCF1tKUSBflcEdxN8W0rULQEa2UV9TrTxz or9JKBTV2nk/LD1x2L2HJgH/pz3TyQShJxSaAicjGZ3Bbi65figRGtFjFc8H9dmo0m N9Bs5PVtdmOxg0L6enLmGGNu6MbxUMP15euWBC3pl1mET/XTmjuZ8i+Xr9ZUseMRSp 0qmgBQJCixDjPi5+ykmetL9+9jifejouee06Dq6zMB9ycCpKyWkSO59/Tc7h00N0Wu LXgqjpCWZf66+1RVjmDixQX7NX/kLo9hIlphZ52yiFjz4a8UAYoe8G4f0kWwBA42kG gk/3/6TTO6dcw==
Received: from [10.230.64.36] ([74.121.22.10]) by resomta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id yjdHczxkOlZOxyjdKcMXk1; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:38:22 +0000
Subject: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <149204035801.15694.8437554373033456064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <16010f27-e86b-b17d-4a13-62645e0bdc89@cs.tcd.ie> <a52be35f-df24-6581-90e6-bc2a262736ea@joelhalpern.com> <56c58cdd-1cc9-2e55-556a-2b799eb6e1cc@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <43378975-daf3-0170-35c7-b57e03b834b2@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:37:36 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56c58cdd-1cc9-2e55-556a-2b799eb6e1cc@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfNVREFHXgxMA0QpdbiJf3zMoueA6iWH+p6NM1Q+jDpDN83L9kNCuvjM2ULAaprXVkD98SBCWaEk+LTkNYiIMwL2fYCfdiVS8eQTqLnPz2AGB2+68dE+Z q9nrKQ7AdH3dwW/41MbBqXT7p6ITAhs+KWKQVCQa0TVmwhLB0vm/ZuO9
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jglsB5c1-7lGZEuadi2jrJgCwlQ>
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: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:38:27 -0000
On 4/12/2017 8:44 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > That's a fair point. I think though that it also puts on onus on > any folks who adamantly think we ought continue to meet in the US, > to also publicly justify that, given the opposite arguments already > voiced on the list. Does it also put the onus on say the UK and the rest of the EU to gaze into the future and promise that the breakup will be amicable and that there will be no changes in the current passage rules between the two or even between EU members? As much as you might like to require someone to prove a negative - it's generally understood that proposing that someone do so tends to be more of a political debate trick than anything else. Looking back in history, immediately after 9/11 - arguably the biggest provocation the US has received during the Internet era - 4 out of the 5 IETF meetings immediately after 9/11 were held in the US under the increased travel scrutiny that we take for granted now and we adapted. The current questions are or need to be: What are the changes and can we adapt. We have a US President that has made big claims and broad pronouncements - but here's the thing. He's not a dictator and he's bound by strong laws and constitutional requirements that limit his reach. Basing a decision on whether or not to hold meetings in the US based on only what Trump says and does vs what he might say and do vs looking at what actually happens (e.g. travel restrictions held in abeyance due to perceived constitutional violations) seems to be taking counsel of fears rather than counsel of facts. I would suggest that we not cancel SF and use it to gain FACTS. I would suggest that by the time SF comes around the bulk of changes (if any) will have occurred and we will be able to quantify their impact on the IETF participants in the scope of that meeting and whether future meetings will need to be held elsewhere for a period of time or whether we're able to adapt. I would further suggest that the impact of having one "bad" meeting would be minimal in the broader scheme of things vs not having a consensus and agreement on both the actual problem and the solution to said problem. Mike
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Vinayak Hegde
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … John C Klensin
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Michael Richardson
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Eliot Lear
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Randy Bush
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Leslie Daigle
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Yoav Nir
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Aaron Falk
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Dave Taht
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Michael StJohns
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … John C Klensin
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … tom p.
- RE: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Eric Gray
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Stephen Farrell
- RE: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Eric Gray
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Yoav Nir
- Re: Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, … Matthew Kerwin
- Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Melinda Shore
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Randy Bush
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Stephen Farrell
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Stephen Farrell
- Fwd: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [IAOC] Update on feedback on US-based meeting… Leslie Daigle