Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Tue, 31 January 2017 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43222126D74 for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:58:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vZBAbjBVb9aZ for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:58:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76712126D73 for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:58:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1485853099; x=1486457899; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=C6GTQgiuYVjkBzvjl2c8DUKFi SfVAfZt2j5SpemivrM=; b=rNREAStuCsmVBJgVcecFG0m6HQkuc//LmG4cBm1z0 Xtz0i2FOo7WvasNRfKuQAceQsH3z0oyRaMiSKm78HMXj+OLASoPb0AsatJRoPUIr D5vKTJRnGbp0MT6pOAH22002IRENx0JLCVqsQ3AtDfH0alA8qUvW7IdV2HTTwoKT oU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon;; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=VIE90edV1oLXqkCwipIpoI/NxThPHx1RZmsviddczZmWE/BQtUNpoiKohEDL FJxc9/ANCheoE1SW1Ci3JyQ9Nfb6alGp+6xzPF/wif4OkKVAs4s4Dl61j 51qJdLqTv1fzUP486VSnaNDyumZOMm/807V+YreO2ERUmiaCczfbW4=;
X-MDAV-Processed:, Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:58:19 +0100
X-Spam-Processed:, Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:58:15 +0100
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50005358219.msg for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:58:14 +0100
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
X-HashCash: 1:20:170131:md50005358219::vX0q3e5ETSqWP0zj:00000jPC
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1e.0.170107
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:58:12 +0100
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: "" <>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
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: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:58:31 -0000

If we include such a cancellation clause, we should also have an insurance contract to cover the non-refundable cost such as flights and hotels that some participants book 1 year in advance in order to have it cheaper.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Recentattendees <> en nombre de "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <>
Responder a: <>
Fecha: lunes, 30 de enero de 2017, 20:57
Para: James Seng <>
CC: "" <>rg>, "Thompson, Jeff" <>du>, Dan Harkins <>rg>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

    Seeing as the email you chose to quote was a response to my email from May 27th, 2016, I’m left trying to decide if you were responding specifically
     to my comments or that earlier thread in general. I still stand by my statements even if it means that the ultimate IETF decision is not to hold meetings in the USA – I think your prognostication unfortunately was correct. I was not being rhetorical in my
     earlier comments – We, as participants engaged in technical efforts across national boundaries need to figure out pragmatic ways of ensuring our efforts and activities continue to function despite decisions by specific localities.  
    Looking forward, it might be reasonable for IETF to include a cancellation clause based on the government of the host country engaging in an act like the ban
     (after the contract has been signed.) 
    From: James Seng []
    Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:08 PM
    To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
    Cc: Thompson, Jeff; Dan Harkins;; Ietf@Ietf. Org
    Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
    I rescind my previous comment that the scenario I painted is rhetorical.
    None of our US fellow IETFers here have any moral authority to talk about "inclusive" ever again.
    -James Seng
    On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:44 AM, James Seng <> wrote:
    Since after 9-11, things have change a lot for United States[1].
    Especially for TSA, I remember going to SFO the first time after 9-11, it took me 2 hours just to clear the security and I missed my flight. I also remember pre 9-11, I could get into US for
     less than 15-20mins. 
    Now, for my American friends who pay in the price in time, let me tell you what we non-American citizen has to do to get into US after 9-11. We have been tagged, photographed, fingerprinted,
     all our 10 fingers every time we have to enter US. We have been systematically profiled, often by racial or nationality, and some of us have to go through enhanced body-to-body search everytime we cross security. I was put in a "Muslim" basket been a Malaysian
     for a while so ... And we have to do it with a smile because if any of us pull of a stunt like Aaron Tobey[2], we could be denied our entry and possibility forever.
    My wife complains that the over the last decade I have put on a lot of weight and asked me to check my photos. Unfortunately, I don't like selfie nor do I like to take pictures of myself. But
     I told her not to worry as TSA has a complete profile of me becoming fat over the years. 
    Today, we all saw a US President may-to-be calling up to forbid Muslim to enter US, to build walls to prevent people from the south, who threaten to get even tougher to foreigners.
    So by the same principle that Jeff is advocate, that we hold IETF meeting where "law declares some people less valid", I prognosticate we may no longer able to hold our meetings in US.
    [1] <> 
    [2] <>
    ps: This is rhetorical to put any doubt in rest. I love US even though getting there is still a pain for me.
    -James Seng
    On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:34 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <> wrote:
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: ietf [] On Behalf Of Thompson, Jeff
    > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:55 AM
    > To: Dan Harkins
    > Cc:; Ietf@Ietf. Org
    > Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF
    > 100
    > On 2016/5/26, 21:11:51, "Recentattendees on behalf of Dan Harkins"
    > < on behalf of>
    > wrote:
    > >  I would also like to suggest that the ability of certain members to
    > >bring their family on a vacation that coincides with an IETF should not
    > >be a governing factor in venue selection. Many people like to launder a
    > >business trip into a family vacation (myself
    > >included!) but that's not why the IETF exists and it should have no
    > >bearing on where we meet.
    > So then, the IETF policy would read ³The IETF may hold meetings in countries
    > where the law declares some people less valid. If you are such a person, then
    > the IETF recommends that to avoid trouble with the law you should hide who
    > you are, including not bringing your family.²
    > Is this the organization that the IETF is going to be?
    > - Jeff
    Is there any country in the world that meets the standard your comment implies should be the IETF policy? Is this a case of perfection being the enemy of good? Perhaps it is a case of perfection being the enemy of reality. I don't know what IETF policy should
     be but I do recognize that there are very real limitations that constrain choices. I'll also point out that the choices made will constrain the choices of participants. I'm not advocating for any particular choice by the IETF with regard to meeting locations.
    Recentattendees mailing list
    -James Seng
    -James Seng
    Recentattendees mailing list

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.