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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>Of course, we don’t have the crystal ball, but in the case of actual US
>situation, I think the chances were so high, that we made a mistake going
>to Chicago.

In my opinion, the only ones who knew this would happen were Michael Moore
and Lisa Simpson…

Regards,

Christer




>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: Naeem Khademi <[e-mail]>
>Responder a: <[e-mail]>
>Fecha: martes, 31 de enero de 2017, 10:44
>Para: <[e-mail]>
>CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Ietf@Ietf.
>Org" <[e-mail]>
>Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF
>100
>
>    
>    
>    On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:58 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
><[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> en nombre de
>"MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <[e-mail]>
>    Responder a: <[e-mail]>
>    Fecha: lunes, 30 de enero de 2017, 20:57
>    Para: James Seng <[e-mail]>
>    CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Thompson,
>Jeff" <[e-mail]>, Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>,
>"Ietf@Ietf. Org" <[e-mail]>
>    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:[e-mail]]
>    
>        Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:08 PM
>        To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
>        Cc: Thompson, Jeff; Dan Harkins; [e-mail];
>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
><[e-mail]> 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-change
>d-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)
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>    
>    
>        > -----Original Message-----
>        > From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>Thompson, Jeff
>        > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:55 AM
>        > To: Dan Harkins
>        > Cc: [e-mail]; 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"
>        > <[e-mail] on behalf of
>        [e-mail]>
>        > 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
>        [e-mail]
>        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>        --
>    
>        -James Seng
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>        --
>        -James Seng
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>        _______________________________________________
>        Recentattendees mailing list
>        [e-mail]
>        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.
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>
>
>
>**********************************************
>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.
>
>
>