Subject: Fwd: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:40:17 -0400

FYI — this is the information as we have it.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Forwarded message:

> From: IAOC Chair <[email-masked]>
> To: IETF Announcement List <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:39:18 -0700
>
> On March 31, 2017, we put out a request for input on experiences with 
> travel to the recent IETF meeting in the US, and solicited information 
> pertinent to plans to attend IETF meetings within or outside the US in 
> the coming years.  We have had over 350 responses to the 
> questionnaire, and we appreciate each and every one of them!   We did 
> not gather the data in such a way for it to reflect a representative 
> sample of the IETF community, or of potential meeting attendees. But 
> we did gain insights from those who responded that we did not have 
> before.
>
> Over 40% of the respondents said they had attended 20 or more IETF 
> meetings, and over 50% of them said they were authors of active 
> working group documents.  Slightly more than 40% stated US residency, 
> and just less than 60% said they were not US-resident.
>
> There was a noted impact of the recent changes to US travel policies 
> and procedures.  Of the respondents living outside of the US who did 
> NOT attend the IETF meeting in Chicago, a few were denied visas or 
> entry into the US, and more than 30 said they did not come because of 
> concerns about US travel restrictions.  On the other hand 45 people 
> said they were not troubled by the US situation (and presumably chose 
> not to come for other reasons).
>
> For those who did travel to IETF 98 in Chicago, the written comments 
> were illuminating:  most people had no issues (for some, even a 
> smoother border crossing than usual); some people experienced the 
> expected flutter over visa approvals as things were in flux as the US 
> Executive Order and court stays played out, but were eventually able 
> to come.
>
> The general comments on meeting in the US played along the same lines 
> as has been shared on the IETF discussion list:  people are variously 
> for moving all meetings out of the US, or adamantly against, or 
> somewhere in between, each position supported by good reasons.
>
> The IAOC is continuing to gather data on travel to the US, concerns 
> about traveling outside of it, and what alternatives are possible for 
> IETF 102.  Our focus is currently on whether holding IETF 102 in San 
> Francisco is the best option to meet the needs of IETF work, 
> recognizing that we cannot predict the future.  While it may take 
> several weeks to allow for review and negotiation of any alternatives 
> (if applicable), we are moving as quickly as possible because we 
> realize that people will need time to plan their travel.
>
>
> Leslie, for the IAOC.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:00:52 +0100

Hi Leslie,

Thanks for the update. One query...

> somewhere in between, each position supported by good reasons.

I have seen mail to the list that argued for not meeting in the US
within our current planing horizon. Some of that was adamant. (For
clarity: I'd agree with the position that we ought not risk meeting
in the US for a few years, incl. that we ought, if possible, move
ietf-102 on the basis that the we don't have a predictable situation
with the US at the moment and that we ought not plan to meet in any
place that's currently that unpredictable.)

I do not recall the opposite on the list, i.e. someone adamantly
arguing that we ought continue to meet in the US. There were some
mails that I'd say maybe weakly argued for continued US meetings
in the relevant timeframe. But nothing approaching adamant.

Is that my bias in reading the list traffic or did I miss some mail,
or is it possible that the (public) list traffic and (relatively
private) survey responses are less similar that your mail implies?

That last wouldn't be surprising, but I'd hope that in that case
some of the people who filled in the survey who adamantly said we
ought continue to meet in the US would be willing to justify that
on the list. If none were, then I think the IAOC ought consider
that as a relevant input in their decision making. (Not as a
winning argument, but as a relevant thing.)

Thanks,
S.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 20:27:16 -0400

Stephen, there may be another factor.
I think that many of us take it as given taht it is desirable to meet in 
the US.  It may not be possible.  It may not, on balance, be what we 
choose.  But choosing to not meet in the US at all creates its own 
hardships.  (Not, I grant, comparable with what some folks get put 
through right now.)

In contrast, I am quite sure that folks who felt strongly that we should 
not meet in the US understood that for that to happen, they needed to 
make their voices heard.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:44:16 +0100

Hiya,

On 13/04/17 01:27, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> the US.

I do not doubt that many IETFers likely think that. And I almost
agree with it.

My only problem is that I'm sadly no longer sure that the present
tense is correct in your statement, which is just a shame.

I fully agree with your statement cast into the past tense.

I really hope that the future tense variant will be something with
which I can agree. At the moment I do not for the reasons stated
(to do with unpredictability).

> In contrast, I am quite sure that folks who felt strongly that we
> should not meet in the US understood that for that to happen, they
> needed to make their voices heard.

That's a fair point. I think though that it also puts on onus on
any folks who adamantly think we ought continue to meet in the US,
to also publicly justify that, given the opposite arguments already
voiced on the list. (I do realise there's a danger there of folks
going OTT, so I hope we all impose a bit of self-restraint if making
arguments either way.)

Note though that my query was with Leslie's assertion that the survey
result and list traffic reflected similar levels of adamant assertion.
(I wasn't doubting that some of us are likely adamant about any random
or non-random topic:-)

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:33:56 +0900

> I'd agree with the position that we ought not risk meeting in the US
> for a few years, incl. that we ought, if possible, move ietf-102 on
> the basis that the we don't have a predictable situation with the US
> at the moment and that we ought not plan to meet in any place that's
> currently that unpredictable.)

to me, the lack of predictibility on the draconian index is the main
issue.  and for the uk as well as the states,  both seem to have a well
developed and practiced ability to do very damaging things on very, or
no, notice.

randy

---

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 02:28:28 +0000

Hi Leslie,

Unfortunately I did not know about this questionair, so if I can make a suggestion regarding the next IETF meetings' location, I would suggest Cairo, Egypt as one of the locations to be considered for an IETF meeting, positive IETF participants will be welcomed here and will enjoy the sunny weather all the year.

For me it was difficult to attend the meeting held in U.S. in person and it was also difficult to attend remotely, so if Egypt will be considered for a meeting, i'm sure participants will enjoy time here during the meeting.

Best Regards,

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
From: Leslie Daigle
To: "Ietf@Ietf. Org"
CC: [email-masked]

Leslie.

--

________________________________

Leslie Daigle

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

Forwarded message:

From: IAOC Chair [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
To: IETF Announcement List [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:39:18 -0700

On March 31, 2017, we put out a request for input on experiences with travel to the recent IETF meeting in the US, and solicited information pertinent to plans to attend IETF meetings within or outside the US in the coming years. We have had over 350 responses to the questionnaire, and we appreciate each and every one of them! We did not gather the data in such a way for it to reflect a representative sample of the IETF community, or of potential meeting attendees. But we did gain insights from those who responded that we did not have before.

Over 40% of the respondents said they had attended 20 or more IETF meetings, and over 50% of them said they were authors of active working group documents. Slightly more than 40% stated US residency, and just less than 60% said they were not US-resident.

There was a noted impact of the recent changes to US travel policies and procedures. Of the respondents living outside of the US who did NOT attend the IETF meeting in Chicago, a few were denied visas or entry into the US, and more than 30 said they did not come because of concerns about US travel restrictions. On the other hand 45 people said they were not troubled by the US situation (and presumably chose not to come for other reasons).

For those who did travel to IETF 98 in Chicago, the written comments were illuminating: most people had no issues (for some, even a smoother border crossing than usual); some people experienced the expected flutter over visa approvals as things were in flux as the US Executive Order and court stays played out, but were eventually able to come.

The general comments on meeting in the US played along the same lines as has been shared on the IETF discussion list: people are variously for moving all meetings out of the US, or adamantly against, or somewhere in between, each position supported by good reasons.

The IAOC is continuing to gather data on travel to the US, concerns about traveling outside of it, and what alternatives are possible for IETF 102. Our focus is currently on whether holding IETF 102 in San Francisco is the best option to meet the needs of IETF work, recognizing that we cannot predict the future. While it may take several weeks to allow for review and negotiation of any alternatives (if applicable), we are moving as quickly as possible because we realize that people will need time to plan their travel.

Leslie, for the IAOC.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:10:28 -0800

> developed and practiced ability to do very damaging things on very, or

+1

Melinda

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:22:52 +0300

> in the relevant timeframe. But nothing approaching adamant.

Well at this point arguing for more US meetings because I had no trouble obtaining a visa and entering the US is the equivalent of stating that I’m a white guy and I’m not feeling any racism or sexism.

More to the point, pretty much all US venues work out better than pretty much any European let alone Asian venues, weirdly shaped rooms notwithstanding. London and Paris come close. Berlin and Prague don’t. This is in terms of nearby availability of food (notice the lack of a “OMG where can I get a grab-and-go sandwich” thread in 98attendees) and in terms of the availability of nearby low-cost hotels. And yes, the fact that everybody speaks English also helps. And despite what people think about crime, no IETF-er ever got shot in the US during IETF week, but every time we meet in Europe some of us will get their pockets picked.

For me, US meetings (Canada’s OK too) are more convenient despite the long, tortuous flight. People have been grumbling about US entry procedure for years and with good reason. But overall US meetings are simply more convenient. YMMV

Yoav

---

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 05:55:22 +0000

I recommend Egypt because it is at the center, will not be so long for anyone, also, weather is an important factor, and for those who would like to visit historical places should focus more about how to go and what to wear, there are modern cities and old cities, there is a big difference, many tourists here with all different styles, and of course no one will disrespect poeple here so he/she will get in trouble.

But regarding Canada, full respect to those people and they will be more than welcomed here.

Regards,

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
From: Yoav Nir
To: Stephen Farrell
CC: IAOC List ,IETF

Yoav

---

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 06:09:21 +0000

Something else to add, Cairo and Giza are so big governorates, and near each others, containing dozens of cities, I remember I attended an event made by Afrinic and really they made a good choice in selecting the hotel and city, quite area and not far from other historical or modern cities, it was 20 minutes to go to the pyramids for example (and of course with ignoring traffic because it depends on when and where to go).

-------- Original Message --------
From: Khaled Omar
To: Yoav Nir
CC: ietf

Regards,

-------- Original Message --------

Yoav

---

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 06:33:07 +0000

-------- Original Message --------
CC:

Regarding visa and entry, there will be no complications especially for people like you, I mean scientists who are coming to held a technical meeting, i'm sure there will be no problem for all so this issue can be ignored (no racism here), but outside the meeting security is your own responsibilty.

-------- Original Message --------

Regards,

-------- Original Message --------

Yoav

---

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 07:05:27 +0000

If you decided to choose Egypt for an IETF meeting, please inform me so I can prepare to participate remotely :-)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
From: Khaled Omar
To: ietf
CC:

-------- Original Message --------

Regards,

-------- Original Message --------

Yoav

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:30:44 +0000

Stephen,

Your argument seems to assume that people should feel a need to publicly justify their feelings on any topic.

That is simply not the case.

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: den 13 april 2017 02:44
To: Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; IETF Announcement List <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

Hiya,

On 13/04/17 01:27, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> 
> I think that many of us take it as given taht it is desirable to meet 
> in the US.

I do not doubt that many IETFers likely think that. And I almost agree with it.

My only problem is that I'm sadly no longer sure that the present tense is correct in your statement, which is just a shame.

I really hope that the future tense variant will be something with which I can agree. At the moment I do not for the reasons stated (to do with unpredictability).

> needed to make their voices heard.

That's a fair point. I think though that it also puts on onus on any folks who adamantly think we ought continue to meet in the US, to also publicly justify that, given the opposite arguments already voiced on the list. (I do realise there's a danger there of folks going OTT, so I hope we all impose a bit of self-restraint if making arguments either way.)

Note though that my query was with Leslie's assertion that the survey result and list traffic reflected similar levels of adamant assertion.
(I wasn't doubting that some of us are likely adamant about any random or non-random topic:-)

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:45:20 +0100

On 13/04/17 09:30, Eric Gray wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> Your argument seems to assume that people should feel a need to
> publicly justify their feelings on any topic.

No I did not argue that at all.

> That is simply not the case.

I agree.

OTOH, if nobody were in fact to adamantly argue in pubic to
continue near term meetings in the US, then I do think that
(as I already said) that is something the IAOC ought factor
into their considerations.

S.

> 
> -- Eric
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: den 13 april 2017 02:44 To: Joel
> M. Halpern <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; IETF
> Announcement List <[email-masked]> Subject: Re: Update on
> feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
>> I think that many of us take it as given taht it is desirable to
>> meet in the US.
> 
> which I can agree. At the moment I do not for the reasons stated (to
> do with unpredictability).
> 
> That's a fair point. I think though that it also puts on onus on any
> folks who adamantly think we ought continue to meet in the US, to
> also publicly justify that, given the opposite arguments already
> result and list traffic reflected similar levels of adamant
> assertion. (I wasn't doubting that some of us are likely adamant
> about any random or non-random topic:-)
> 
> Cheers, S.
>

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:59:58 +0000

Stephen,

You used the word "onus" - which can be interpreted to mean "duty" or "responsibility."

For me, at least, the distinction between duty, responsibility and "need" is practically non-existent.  This the basis of my objection to what you said.

Even if you disagree with this interpretation, however, I very much doubt that anyone should feel an "onus" to publicly defend their opinion on any topic, much less on a topic that is as likely to be unpopular with one group or another as this topic is.

I also doubt that this applies to any "onus" to state the degree or strength of conviction regarding an opinion, even if one is willing to state it.

If your point is that perhaps the degree to which any response was "adamant" should probably have been omitted, then I agree.  But, if your point is that the willingness of one group of respondents to state their degree of conviction places any duty or responsibility on anyone positing a different opinion to similarly state a degree of conviction, then I feel a need to disagree.  Perhaps adamantly.  :-)

--
Eric 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: den 13 april 2017 10:45
To: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>; Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; IETF Announcement List <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
Importance: High

I agree.

OTOH, if nobody were in fact to adamantly argue in pubic to continue near term meetings in the US, then I do think that (as I already said) that is something the IAOC ought factor into their considerations.

S.

> On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: den 13 april 2017 02:44 To: Joel M. 
> Halpern <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; IETF 
> folks who adamantly think we ought continue to meet in the US, to also 
> publicly justify that, given the opposite arguments already voiced on 
> the list. (I do realise there's a danger there of folks going OTT, so 
> I hope we all impose a bit of self-restraint if making arguments 
> either way.)
>

---

From: tom p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:00:54 +0100

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 4:10 AM

> developed and practiced ability to do very damaging things on very, or

I am in favour of the UK doing very damaging things on very, or no,
notice; in fact, I prefer no notice.

I don't know how widely bad news spreads these days, but suspected
terrorists continue to kill people in the UK, and Europe, every few
months and while some of the attacks have resulted in significant loss
of life, we have not, in the recent past, had the hundreds of deaths
from a plane being brought down; and the worst case scenario, of a crash
over a major city, would make that thousands.

The shoe bomber was not forestalled but did not cause a crash.  The
printer cartridge bomb was not forestalled but did not cause a crash.
The use of three household liquids to create a bomb on board was
forestalled; preventing it caused massive disruption and resentment but
when the facts emerged, then the action seemed reasonable and
proportionate; and I was relieved that no notice was given.

Now there is a ban on electronic devices in hand luggage when travelling
to the UK from six countries; I saw that that was going to be extended
for travel to all Europe and perhaps to the USA.  I see no explanation
for this action but the history, as above, makes me see this, on
balance, as a prudent precaution.

So suspected terrorists switch to low tech means - lorries, knives and
such like - and people continue to be killed but when, without warning,
my travel plans are disrupted, then I give the disrupters the benefit of
the doubt.

Probabality low, impact high.  YMMV.

Tom Petch

+1

Melinda

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:21:32 -0400

The problem with the current state of unpredictability is that the trust
and good faith which previously underpinned the actions of the authorities
has been stripped away.

When you have a politician ranting to a mob that Muslims and Mexicans won't
be allowed in and they get elected, that has consequences. All the actions
that have in the past been dismissed as unrepresentative are being held up
as representative examples.

The idea of a security concern that only happens to affect specific
airlines flying specific routes is rather difficult for me to accept. When
it turns out that the only two governments to impose the restrictions just
so happen to have a commercial interest in establishing a non tariff
barrier to protect their own hub airports against competition, one does ask
if security is merely being used as a pretext for a measure designed to
protect trade interests, not people.

The system of international relationships and connections depends on trust.
I for one do not see any reason to give any politician the benefit of the
doubt when I am taking them at their word.

What is said, cannot be unsaid. There are very good reasons why politicians
with long experience in the system do not attempt to gain office using the
methods that characterized 2016. It is one thing to gain office, quite
another to gain power.

---

From: Joel Halpern Direct <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:30:32 -0400

In addition to Eric's well-said point, adamance is probably not the most 
important factor.

To make up numbers, if 3/4 of the community thinks we should continue to 
meet in the US, 23 or so percent think we shouldn't, and a small number 
of people are adamant that we shouldn't meet in the US, the much larger 
number of quiet people on both sides of the issue is FAR more important 
than a small number of adamant voices.

In fact, we have a version of this problem with almost all of our 
process discussions, wherein we weigh the strident voices on both sides 
much higher than the interested, reasoned, but quiet participants.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:35:30 -0400

--On Thursday, April 13, 2017 01:00 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> Is that my bias in reading the list traffic or did I miss some
> mail, or is it possible that the (public) list traffic and
> (relatively private) survey responses are less similar that
> your mail implies?
> 
> That last wouldn't be surprising, but I'd hope that in that
> case some of the people who filled in the survey who adamantly
> said we ought continue to meet in the US would be willing to
> justify that on the list. If none were, then I think the IAOC
> ought consider that as a relevant input in their decision
> making. (Not as a winning argument, but as a relevant thing.)

Stephen (and others, with a specific nod to Randy's and Tom's
comments):

As least a few of us interpreted the IAOC as requesting comments
to their special list, found the "cities" and "US meetings"
inquiries inseparable, and decided to adhere to that request.
Dismissing our comments because we did so seems inappropriate.
In addition, some relevant comments were made during the
Mtgvenue session in Chicago and presumably recorded in its
minutes; especially if the request was for advice to the IAOC
rather than a general discussion, it hardly seemed necessary to
repeat those comments here.

However, to reprise while trying to remain brief:

(1) We are living in very unstable times in which reliable
predictions of the long-term future, or even the future for the
3 to 5 years out that the IAOC thinks the community has told it
to plan meetings, is even more difficult than usual. There are
strong reasons, connected to our traditional criteria such as
locations near where concentrations of the participants live and
appropriate facilities, for meeting in the US, and we should
avoid meeting in the US only if the circumstances and logic make
sense.

(2) I don't believe in canceling, or refusing to hold, meetings
in a particular location to make a political point or to punish
a government that we see as behaving badly, if only for the
purely pragmatic reason that few governments are likely to pay
any attention at all to where we do or do not hold meetings.
Certainly the US is not one of the exceptions.   However, if we
do make decisions on that basis --and some of the on-list
comments have sounded very much like that-- then we'd better be
ready to schedule meetings for those countries, on
shorter-than-usual notice if necessary, to reward them if the
policies are changed.

(3) Circumstances change.  Not just political circumstances (who
would have predicted a year ago that the US would be in its
present state now?), but there is always a risk of hotel or
neighborhood remodeling or construction and natural and
human-made disasters that could severely impede a meeting or
attendance at it.  It seems to me to be very important that we
think through the circumstances under which we would pull the
plug on a venue on short notice -- whether to try to find a
different location or to go largely or entirely remote -- and,
as others suggested during the mtgvenue session, that we keep
that set of discussions rather separate from how we do
longer-term meeting planning.

(4) I have no idea how to predict likely US policies toward
visitors (or residents traveling outside the country and trying
to return) six months out, much less three to five years in the
future.  The government's sudden policy reversals in several
other areas in the last two weeks should add to everyone's
uncertainty, as should the possibility that the courts will
continue to block obnoxious policies and punish those who
profile and harass selected visitors.   The threats to require
passwords, inspection of phones, and similar nonsense of people
who are now covered by visa waivers may turn out to be a real
issues or as hollow as promises to brand China a currency
manipulator turned into during the last 48 hours or so.

Equally important, it is impossible to predict British policies
as Brexit evolves nor what other countries might do in
retaliation or response to those policies, US actions, etc.
Given other forces in the world, I think it would be unwise to
place large bets on the Schengen agreements being unchanged
three or five years from now, especially where holders of non-EU
passports are concerned.  Similar issues apply in Asia: for
example, I hope that we won't see sufficient destabilization on
the Korean Peninsula to make a meeting in Seoul or even Busan
inadvisable, but, if the macho chest-pounding, posturing, and
implicit threats by assorted crazy-spectrum people continues,
one never knows.   I think it is pretty safe to suggest that it
would be unwise to plan a meeting for Damascus or Aleppo three
years from now, but no one has seriously proposed either city.  

However, within sensible limits (with the two Syrian examples
mentioned as examples of non-sensible cases), I'm opposed to
making _any_ changes in our long-term meeting plans based on
rapidly changing political considerations, including but not
limited to events in the US or UK in the last year.  Again, I
think it is important to monitor things as meetings get close
and to have some community consensus about the circumstances
under which we would make significant changes in meeting plans,
but deciding to hold (or not hold) a meeting in the US based on
fears or fantasies about what has happened in the last six
months (or overconfidence about how those things will play 9ut)
and where those things might lead makes no sense to me.

best,
    john

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:37:36 -0400

On 4/12/2017 8:44 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> voiced on the list.

Does it also put the onus on say the UK and the rest of the EU to gaze 
into the future and promise that the breakup will be amicable and that 
there will be no changes in the current passage rules between the two or 
even between EU members?

As much as you might like to require someone to prove a negative - it's 
generally understood that proposing that someone do so tends to be more 
of a political debate trick than anything else.

Looking back in history, immediately after 9/11 - arguably the biggest 
provocation the US has received during the Internet era - 4 out of the 5 
IETF meetings immediately after 9/11 were held in the US under the 
increased travel scrutiny that we take for granted now and we adapted.  
The current questions are or need to be:  What are the changes and can 
we adapt.

We have a US President that has made big claims and broad pronouncements 
- but here's the thing.  He's not a dictator and he's bound by strong 
laws and constitutional requirements that limit his reach.   Basing a 
decision on whether or not to hold meetings in the US based on only what 
Trump says and does vs what he might say and do vs looking at what 
actually happens (e.g. travel restrictions held in abeyance due to 
perceived constitutional violations) seems to be taking counsel of fears 
rather than counsel of facts.

I would suggest that we not cancel SF and use it to gain FACTS. I would 
suggest that by the time SF comes around the bulk of changes (if any) 
will have occurred and we will be able to quantify their impact on the 
IETF participants in the scope of that meeting and whether future 
meetings will need to be held elsewhere for a period of time or whether 
we're able to adapt.  I would further suggest that the impact of having 
one "bad" meeting would be minimal in the broader scheme of things vs 
not having a consensus and agreement on both the actual problem and the 
solution to said problem.

Mike

---

From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:42:48 -0700

I find meetecho to have evolved to being an effective tool, and no
longer intend to attend ietf meetings in person. I'll miss the beer,
company and cookies; won't miss the travel and hotel hassles.

---

From: "Aaron Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:36:43 -0400

+1

On 13 Apr 2017, at 14:35, John C Klensin wrote:

> I'm opposed to

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:23:50 +0200

Well, for some countries what Trump said, has already been a fact, for example the prohibition to have computers on board. Is not that the case?

Whatever we want to decide, cancel SF or not, it may highly depend on budget, we like it or not. And that means that we need answers:

    If we cancel San Francisco, how much that is going to cost to the IETF for each of two planned meetings?
    
    Can we cancel the actual hotel contract considering the new US situation? If not, has this been considered for new contracts to avoid this problem?
    
    Otherwise there is any reason that can justify the lack of transparency in this?

The problem is so big for this community that I don’t even agree that the IAOC should take the decision. It must be a collective one, especially when the IAOC is demonstrating thru facts that they don’t care that we are discussing and wasting our time without the minimum relevant data, this is disrespectful and even more, not responding to emails since even since years ago, shows lack of education 

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <[email-masked]> en nombre de Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: jueves, 13 de abril de 2017, 20:37
Para: <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

    

    

    Mike

    

**********************************************
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.

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 14:36:40 +0530

> On March 31, 2017, we put out a request for input on experiences with travel to the recent IETF meeting in the US, and solicited information pertinent to plans to attend IETF meetings within or out…

Can the data be put out in an anonymized fashion without revealing PII
(such as name or email) ? The data has been interpreted for the
community but it might be useful for the community to look at the data
gathered as well. It might help change opinions or people on the fence
or people to rethink their positions.

> Over 40% of the respondents said they had attended 20 or more IETF meetings, and over 50% of them said they were authors of active working group documents.  Slightly more than 40% stated US residen…

Since the US-meeting disproportionately affects those traveling to the
US, I think that might be an axis against which data needs to be
interpreted. The burden on many US citizens would be (possibly) extra
travel in case the meeting is not located nearby (such as in Canada or
Mexico).

Also many nationalities might not need to apply for US visa or face
lesser stringent barriers to entry. So knowing the country of
citizenship might be useful in the data.

> The general comments on meeting in the US played along the same lines as has been shared on the IETF discussion list:  people are variously for moving all meetings out of the US, or adamantly again…

Again might be useful to see the data.

> The IAOC is continuing to gather data on travel to the US, concerns about traveling outside of it, and what alternatives are possible for IETF 102.  Our focus is currently on whether holding IETF 1…

Is there a rough timeline for this ?

-- Vinayak

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:11:50 -0400

> IETF for each of two planned meetings?

And, what is the "break-even" point for attendance?
If people vote with their wallets, what is the impact?

(remember that the revenue that pays to operate the rfc-editor function is
generated as a result of having meetings)

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 19:31:38 +0200

Hi John,

> avoid meeting in the US only if the circumstances and logic make

The same holds true for other regions.

> shorter-than-usual notice if necessary, to reward them if the

I largely agree with you on this point.  The basis of whether to hold a
meeting is whether the organizers believe that the objectives of the
IETF can be achieved.  If as individuals a great many of us make known
that we would refuse to attend a meeting because of the locale, then the
likelihood of holding a successful meeting is diminished.  Thus, we
don't really require additional rules in this regard.

> longer-term meeting planning.

I think that's a worthy discussion, but as editor of that doc, my plea
is that we not get bogged down in it just yet.

> manipulator turned into during the last 48 hours or so.

These aren't mere threats.  The CPB *already* does require *some* people
to unlock their devices.  As inconvenient as that might be (a) it is not
new, and (b) it is by no means unique to the United States.
> and where those things might lead makes no sense to me.

Stability is an important aspect, when considering all of this.  It also
seems to be diminishing commodity.

The IAOC can only work on the information they have at the time that
they make decisions.  At THIS time, people are being refused visas and
being turned away at the border in a nearly indiscriminate fashion. 
Maybe not a lot, but perhaps enough (where "enough" is going to be in
the eye of the beholder).  While it is true that the situation could
calm down in the next few months or years, that is NOT the information
we have at THIS time.  At the end of the day, the IAOC must make an
assessment as to whether or not they are likely to hold a successful
meeting in the U.S. in several years' time.  If they judge that the
meeting would exclude a good number of people, where in, say, Canada the
refusals would be lower, why wouldn't we hold the meeting in Canada
instead (not that Canada is perfect)?

Eliot

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:49:08 -0400

--On Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:42 -0700 Dave Taht
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I find meetecho to have evolved to being an effective tool,
> and no longer intend to attend ietf meetings in person. I'll
> miss the beer, company and cookies; won't miss the travel and
> hotel hassles.

I'm not quite at the point of "never", although Chicago was my
first f2f meeting in a few years.

However, even weighting the beer, company, and cookies in, I
think you identify another factor that the IAOC should consider
and that may affect the present discussion and especially the
short-term changes in policies, practices, or facilities:  I
think it is likely that, over time, more people will follow your
lead in not finding f2f attendance at particular meetings
critical and, in particular, in not attending meeting that
appear to them, perhaps not long before the registration
deadline, to be more trouble then they are worth.   Could that
result in reduced attendance in July 2018?  Sure, although
probably not as much reduced as Michael's "local west coast
attendees" prediction.  But suppose that, by then, US border
policies have stabilized back to around the 2015 status quo
(plus or minus some ongoing ranting that people might have
learned to ignore by then), UK policies are in a state of some
disarray a year into the Brexit transition, and a non-trivial
number of people find Singapore inappropriate because of issues
discussed at great length on this list and/or a bit expensive
for their tastes or budgets.  That combination of scenarios --
none of them especially far-fetched -- with those of us who like
to get to a meeting occasionally even if we expect to be remote
most of the time  plus locals looking in to see what IETF is
about (IIR, we've had a large number of those in previous
meetings in the Bay Area and down the peninsula) could easily
lead to a larger-than-expected attendance in San Francisco (even
if the IAOC has already estimated the last factor and included
it in their estimates).    

That is a really bad game to play, especially if one remembers
how restive the community gets when meeting rooms are too small
for WG attendees to get into them.

While I think it is less likely than that US policies 15 months
hence will be a lot closer to where they were a year ago than to
what Trump tried to put into effect in January, were changes to
occur in Singapore that would result in visa requirements for
everyone and requirements to indicate religion and sexual
preferences on applications, previous discussions on this list
would imply that meeting would be, IMO, in a _lot_ more trouble
than we can anticipate for San Francisco.

And that, again without underestimating the difficulties or
costs of meeting cancellations, moves, etc., brings me rather
quickly back to "can't predict what will happen nearly well
enough to make finely-tuned plans wrt either countries or cities
within those countries on the basis of immigration/ travel/ or
border policies" so the most useful strategy is the general
policies we've been following, with as much flexibility for
unpredictable fluctuations in attendance vis-a-vis projections
as we can get.  Either that or, in the hope that we can predict
that far in advance (which might not be true), we just stop
trying to set meeting locations more than a year in advance with
whatever that implies about choices, costs, conflicts and
disruption (including probably needing to cancel some meetings,
or at least move dates around, because we can't otherwise find a
place to meet).  Probably can't have it both ways.

    john

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:29:36 -0400

Stephen,

Apologies for taking so long to respond — quiet minutes in front of a 
computer keyboard have been distressingly scarce this week.

In-line:

> private) survey responses are less similar that your mail implies?

I think subsequent traffic has exposed more of the contrary thinking, 
and I don’t want to belabour it here.

To the specific question of “where has this been said”,  I’m 
referring to the messages on the IETF discussion list, as well as 
messages sent to the venue-selection mail drop address.  (That’s not a 
discussion list, but the archive is public, in the usual IETF site 
sources).

While we didn’t intend the request for input on specific cities (i.e., 
messages to venue-selection) to supersede the targeted questionnaire 
about travel experiences, people’s responses there do reflect the 
issue of US travel.

Leslie.

--

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:45:48 +0900

attendees are not fungible