Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Tue, 04 April 2017 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@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 D0B2F1271DF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 NgNcy_MupCax for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22f.google.com (mail-pg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22f]) (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 AA031128CD5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 81so164981773pgh.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 15:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=edZSp0hLxqnsC+2MXM9IVu91VMGgx6SGZ4ANsAfSFNs=; b=dospXPuvtPsPXdd4BOAlkepvnpYScK4wVipfoSDIAuUuyy9aFfk207DDSs7YMs8n6N otVT/0cXbpEIaozcXvQliqkI4eDR+WbK/sLEEKJKOUSV9kHrHpGZ/D9qRHFt7ERTgEgF fP2uvhYyVhpVVjMeTq12pySUag0ZXzG0eS6XLh5oMPCbAa4LM9ijTWD3L9Fl6cEQe7jW EZvvOj8syTf2bgrQdogKjDgHsP0FiqQuIzNqIw57pKyWUWAjOGSIT5LRUaMA+4iUYAhH Nkg7xUdrS3M7Iut/Q2erMqh+P5kAs+Q16Vlir4d/D3F1qjkY2FRNnmf+HwEW3xOedZCi aZvQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=edZSp0hLxqnsC+2MXM9IVu91VMGgx6SGZ4ANsAfSFNs=; b=khj4oZjYPbY/rA/J5eZ8GiuYriJ/OPurYtTR7REgjLmEg1G64Gi/4/PfOutIq73oxk ouc33ham/V4MWUM6bAzK7bIhg2d27LcOP2lH1rTGH7iESQF9VD23vafVrCB8US9W0Ygb fcFj5J78QlcP52THWMpaY+WnhaXyysUbsMmzspxLhrEc/miKFyu55EvR5zJkK/4160B8 4uGQ3ls3RVTpcq1KlWpNKP+ZEdcNf4gVcbdgyXkJDZ+t3/rStAnqKl5hN0npg6iONgRx YbV4ToINSKwTSZlhY1mAQmGFIXN5Gw0ohc6hc8DbA3cNzW98b8dM/c8T2klbdXSuscYl iM5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2G5HT0pejxJWt6UGSiDnKmNGxApw8Q0dLIL0dr73+2UKCORXvnuHqqLnkFY28D7w==
X-Received: by 10.98.201.77 with SMTP id k74mr25238977pfg.74.1491346567413; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 15:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (63-140-78-125-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.78.125]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y6sm22239870pgc.40.2017.04.04.15.56.06 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Apr 2017 15:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
To: ietf@ietf.org
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> <2987213d-075e-beff-64f8-d316709c404a@cs.tcd.ie> <20170404204617.GC16732@puck.nether.net> <e70a5f90-02b1-7ec5-30dd-9cd7f20821b1@cisco.com>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b814561c-939a-51b8-b999-d08cad0c15bd@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:56:04 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e70a5f90-02b1-7ec5-30dd-9cd7f20821b1@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MA8tXGw9cGpiwGo0Gd5sbLfJxjq1U62jh"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sn3kNGkFxlIxUTwM_DNN6UJgqPs>
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 22:56:11 -0000

On 4/4/17 1:56 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Jared, man, read the newspapers.

Well, there's certainly that (the Canadian paper, the Globe and
Mail, has done a lot of excellent work on tracking down incidents
where Canadians have had problems entering the US, as one example).

I think the broader problem is that there's just a lot of uncertainty
and inconsistency, and even if it were possible to collect an
authoritative list of incidents it wouldn't capture the problem that
many people crossing the border in and out of the US these days don't
really know what to expect.  It's one thing when you're not sure
whether or not your bag of dog food will be permitted in and an
entirely different one when you're not sure whether or not you'll
be turned back.

I don't know how to capture that uncertainty in a way that will
satisfy the skeptics but it does seem to me to be a very serious
problem with respect to planning.

Melinda