Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 31 March 2017 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 4B751129962; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 IRDG0lOGc8qq; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71A2F129961; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3199; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490971345; x=1492180945; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=EjXG5EVnG0/dNm6/0swbD7IjZ5L1RZDP4cSpjFPR0f8=; b=Tc/wrvnmUYAEbvw6ZAgR+eO0jmiX4XQUKaX9fpyuhAVByJGfoqhQlcWs DykIGMu5f8SS5sLj4VZJQQXaoBlxTXp6rcFUcS6KqM5sMZ6LEyfQWwZHr KzgtBVGAdVZGLNvg7SnNbNCQUJVMa7/CAugXiqsVqVbAAbUeke3aCqu0V 8=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A5AwARat5Y/4MNJK1dGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBg1SFTooSkTYfk0GCD4IOhiICg0Y/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRYBBSNJCQE?= =?us-ascii?q?TCxgqAgJXBwwIAQEQiXmtXYImgUeJFAEBAQcBAQEBFQ+IUwiCYoQ3AQGDIYJfB?= =?us-ascii?q?YsEhWKMBIN8ggyMSIpfhluTcR84PkclFggYFYc4IodTDxcDghQBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,252,1486425600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="225042488"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 31 Mar 2017 14:42:24 +0000
Received: from [10.86.247.170] ([10.86.247.170]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2VEgNAa030592; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:42:24 GMT
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
To: ietf@ietf.org, venue-selection@ietf.org
References: <149096990336.4276.3480662759931758139.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <9fee9874-1306-07a2-a84a-4e09381a5336@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:42:23 -0500
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: <149096990336.4276.3480662759931758139.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="f7bwGIEoqjncKqhTkCW411DXQhIDUx9MF"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wSJLBi3QOzOzvyV8BCnlq09WLVI>
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: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:42:28 -0000

Hi,


On 3/31/17 9:18 AM, IAOC Chair wrote:
> The IAOC remains committed to soliciting input on future IETF meeting locations. With this mail, we are soliciting input on some potential IETF locations, including one where we have met before, but for which conditions may have changed.
>
> Specifically, we seek community input on reasons we could not have a successful meeting in any of the following cities, or of any limits to attendee accessibility or inclusiveness that should be considered:
>
> Ottawa
> San Francisco
> Austin, TX
> Barcelona
> Boston
> Busan
> Calgary
> Denver
> Helsinki
> Houston
> New Orleans
> Osaka
> Philadelphia
> Washington DC

I apologize for not following the form in the subject line, but in my
view, there is sufficient uncertainty about ability of people to gain
entry to the United States that we should not be planning meetings in
this country.  Over the last few weeks we have seen people with valid
visas turned away at the border or otherwise detained, sometimes for
days, without any cause being given.  We have people in our community
who could not get a visa in time for the Chicago meeting.  With the vote
by the European Parliament requiring Americans to have visas to enter
into EU countries, it is likely we will see a further degradation of the
situation, such as suspension of the VWP, thus bringing further
uncertainty to new and more common classes of individuals.

That translates into concerns over San Francisco, Austin, Boston,
Denver, Houston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Washington DC.  I would
prefer, therefore, as alternatives, Calgary, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal,
Quebec City, and Vancouver.

Eliot