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

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.
>
>
>
>