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

Christer Holmberg <> Tue, 31 January 2017 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56BD1299E8 for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:39:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bcpSXROasA0l for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:39:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DCBD1299DE for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:39:31 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-5ba3c980000036c9-8b-5890e7f21e0a
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id AD.29.14025.2F7E0985; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:39:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:39:28 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: David Morris <>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <>
Subject: RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 19:39:27 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpjkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbFdQvfT8wkRBvc7pC0u/z7FbPFs43wW i7/HPzM7MHus2x/gsWTJTyaPvk1r2AKYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgyri59xFrwSbDi66EdLA2M W/i6GDk5JARMJO5v2MPexcjFISSwjlFi6fGrjBDOYkaJj3MXAGU4ONgELCS6/2mDNIgIhEo8 nt7KDmIzCyhLPN00hwnEFhbwkTi6YhobRI2vxIInS8GGighMY5S40ryGFSTBIqAqcfHjDrAG XqCiVwdWMoPYQJvZJfb8VgOxOQUcJeYtfA+2gFFATOL7qTVMEMvEJW49mc8EcbWAxJI955kh bFGJl4//sULYShJrD29ngajXkViw+xMbhK0tsWzha2aIvYISJ2c+YZnAKDoLydhZSFpmIWmZ haRlASPLKkbR4tTipNx0I2O91KLM5OLi/Dy9vNSSTYzA2Dm45bfqDsbLbxwPMQpwMCrx8G64 NyFCiDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkggv7zOgEG9KYmVValF+fFFpTmrxIUZpDhYlcV6zlffDhQTSE0tS s1NTC1KLYLJMHJxSDYyTndVkNXPeaW26f2HKRcXa3FVNzPOXxUzaszPu3l/FnBuZHaIcIr+l bbjNzN4+0mcqbdL12rDl1ISfD543ZT34diJt8XpxxhYJfY2aDnPjJcW6S/QCTu7o2v91Bm9y f/AHbkUZ+Ujfo89vXwrY4fxZWi/CYMu63NeLy1V9v0qlfWKVldXdFKPEUpyRaKjFXFScCABk FCkumQIAAA==
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
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 19:39:33 -0000


Also, it's not the first time people will be prevented from attending an IETF meeting due to visa issues. The problem has been around for years, and we discuss it whenever there is a meeting in US. Very likely there will be people from "non-banned" countries that won't be able to attend the Chicago meeting because of visa issues - perhaps even more people than those from "banned" countries that won't be able to attend...



-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [] On Behalf Of David Morris
Sent: 31 January 2017 21:00
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> of actual US situation, I think the chances were so high, that we made 
> a mistake going to Chicago. As it may affect a significant % of 
> participants.

Perhaps you knew the chances were high, but the policital establishment didn't share your insight.

And while I agree that some conditions would warrant cancelation of a contract, exactly how would that contract be written that would be acceptable to all parties that would allow for cancelation because a peaceful transition of power brought policies that you don't like.

The percentage of likely participants that will be effected? What would that percentage be? Would the inconvenience of implementing Brexit result in a cancelation trigger?

One way to avoid liability for individual cancelation expenses is to warn everyone to purchase their own insurance OR not commit well in advance.

In the end, no matter where the IETF schedules a meeting a year or more in advance, there might be an issue resulting in cancelation. A major earth quake or hurricane could make the venue impossible. As could the political situation though the litmus test would be harder.

Providing first class remote paricipation from several locations worldwide would be awesome AND expensive. Would folks be willing to pay the same registration fee to use such facilities as attending? I worked for a company with such facilities so I know it is possible.

David Morris