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

Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@gmail.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <naeem.khademi@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 91C74129643; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:44:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 qcCkJc22czDH; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x22f.google.com (mail-it0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::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 B0E4A1293F0; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id c7so212328116itd.1; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:44:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QJp6kuf6n/FMUwA5gnktOimeQqkorsokLEyaQzVryvs=; b=mn5FIN9HFeVmUEJgTQRNnZiX3F9rQYNoIolddodhYjZNXAh9iL2K9qJUj7CH1pN+Or xRPOZGqbURJMTUL7VxMF5PJyY07abinOWmyZv/6sK5TyVAKTVBSHU0iB/I1kauo4TXTs Iu70jmpLa40LLmklb4IEZlYyKwDGNs4976Xd77/U50jfBDGEYCe88BGG4uMfCReCjsOP hvun8QBrnpKGurrTusR9300xwxlraRHxgl7HI5guXn3V5Z1+YLZZYwPJXBHOEHqoB9Vb a3ooco5purt2tscHM6fT89saVJ6/KnuxfKKd5/ONctA45JCyAnC7GzeH2F4E2XCVn+2N k4Hw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QJp6kuf6n/FMUwA5gnktOimeQqkorsokLEyaQzVryvs=; b=DsXtfK+FWZd0RWDRj7OobTFyDzWPE+x6PYk/Q3PuWKDPU0mod52hUv2xfgRPvA9AyT hv/i5wMOGLPsT4Jinv9FyDDt6FzEmH3anhPPTH9pLg0baDy5Gm0UXkgbF5aASDly23QU EPdjKLvCqsQmLr7kiz8xUMCmv7npkMxxbNHSKbEuOZgqj119tBthoiceDR/SPa9xCEzE v3LopCTGcaod8mlNDxOEBLYiZ/MkNlSthJz/5hoTGwC8ecYyl34VuRmST5NdwmBI5YGZ fNLLHYlqipoOUSf/8HTD0ca6jJA68kq5xb4pTZKGfMZfC26Fzp6eD5tjHrwrSp0N5dpJ 5daw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLedT+Db54GSt+1EndBehljt0y2M3y6/iT7oPPwjJ+ana6eJp153pYdJkiUXDjtxzCqhVcU2HOfV1g8YQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.112.146 with SMTP id f140mr18886926itc.51.1485855858948; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:44:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.178.210 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:44:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <A0BBD037-851F-4F47-A7F2-44EFC73166AD@consulintel.es>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <955df2106aa2e12cefbd450be022e779.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <D36D49EE.35116%jefft0@remap.ucla.edu> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05266663BF@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <CA+ruDECdMAC2PQqibqQijc-nLHUxOGw0h-ZYyh8FnZZaeZ8sTA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ruDEBHyzk5cg5Vmq-anKJTxLkZpHrb9APwkfbDGn6FeFzR_w@mail.gmail.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B052BD4B85D@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <A0BBD037-851F-4F47-A7F2-44EFC73166AD@consulintel.es>
From: Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:44:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEjQQ5Wbxi0_fEVf3uh1_K=o02KK11jRgGhdpeiBhAojhtt76g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f7318a905ec054760c6fe
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/t9sGu4Xdi04vyPh0uLhQ_3mfLWE>
Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 31 Jan 2017 09:44:23 -0000

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:58 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi.palet@consulintel.es>; wrote:

> 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.
>

The next IETF in the US after Chicago, would be in July 2018 in SF. I don't
think it's even possible to buy a flight ticket for that time as of now
(most airlines wouldn't do such pre-sale). So, it's pretty much possible to
relocate that meeting elsewhere with causing no loss to anyone's
already-made plans.

Regards,
Naeem


>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Recentattendees <recentattendees-bounces@ietf.org>; en nombre de "MH
> Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com>;
> Responder a: <MHammer@ag.com>;
> Fecha: lunes, 30 de enero de 2017, 20:57
> Para: James Seng <james.seng@gmail.com>;
> CC: "recentattendees@ietf.org"; <recentattendees@ietf.org>;, "Thompson,
> Jeff" <jefft0@remap.ucla.edu>;, Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>;,
> "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <ietf@ietf.org>;
> Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
>
>
>     James,
>
>     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.)
>
>     Mike
>
>     From: James Seng [mailto:james.seng@gmail.com]
>
>     Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:08 PM
>     To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
>     Cc: Thompson, Jeff; Dan Harkins; recentattendees@ietf.org; 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 <james.seng@gmail.com>;
> 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]
>     http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/united-states-after-911-6-
> things-have-changed-2001-2093156 <http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/
> united-states-after-911-6-things-have-changed-2001-2093156>
>
>
>
>
>     [2]
>     http://dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/how-to-fight-the-tsa <
> http://dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/how-to-fight-the-tsa>
>
>
>
>     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) <
> MHammer@ag.com>; wrote:
>
>
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thompson,
> Jeff
>     > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:55 AM
>     > To: Dan Harkins
>     > Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org; 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"
>     > <recentattendees-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of
>     dharkins@lounge.org>;
>     > 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
>     >
>
>     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.
>
>     Mike
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Recentattendees mailing list
>     Recentattendees@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --
>
>     -James Seng
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     -James Seng
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Recentattendees mailing list
>     Recentattendees@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> 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.
>
>
>
>