Subject: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3 of draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?

From: "YAO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:24:41 +0800

according to IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04#section-2.3

which said "

2.3.  Freedom of Participation

   Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could
   be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for
   all participants.
"

My question is :"

Is USA qualified for 2.3 of draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria as IETF Meeting Venue ?"

It seems that many IETFer are disallowed to enter USA for ietf meeting when ietf is held in USA this time or other times
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: Song Haibin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:04:36 +0800

My visa application is still under the check in the Shanghai USA embassy
since I submitted it in September 17th. What can I say?

Best Regards,
Song Haibin
Email: [email-masked]
Skype: alexsonghw

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
>Behalf Of YAO
>Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:25 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3
>ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
>
>
>
>Is USA qualified for 2.3 of
draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria
>as IETF Meeting Venue ?"
>
>It seems that many IETFer are disallowed to enter USA for ietf meeting when
ietf
>is held in USA this time or other times

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:40:30 -0500

--On Tuesday, 18 November, 2008 14:24 +0800 YAO
<[email-masked]> wrote:
 
>    Meetings should not be held in countries where some
> attendees could    be disallowed entry or where freedom of
> speech is not guaranteed for    all participants.

(cross-posting removed)

(1) to the very limited extent to which anything can be done
from this end, you need to request invitation letters (which may
or may not help, but can't hurt) and ask for help as early as
possible, not wait until after the meeting has started.  It
might not have made any difference -- indeed, it probably would
not have -- but we will never know.

(2) While it probably won't be immediate, some of us hope that
things will get better in this area, as well as some others,
after January 20.

      john

---

From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:46:40 -0600

No good can come of this thread.

How about we wait a few months and see what happens after the fourth branch
of government becomes part of the executive branch again on Jan 20th?

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:24 AM, YAO <[email-masked]> wrote:

> draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria as IETF Meeting Venue ?"
>
> ietf is held in USA this time or other times

-- 
Author: The dotCrime Manifesto: How to Stop Internet Crime
http://dotcrimemanifesto.com
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:38:57 -0600

On Nov 18, 2008, at 00:24, YAO wrote:
>
> It seems that many IETFer are disallowed to enter USA for ietf  
> meeting when ietf is held in USA this time or other times

Has anyone been denied entry to the USA for IETF 73, without official  
explanation, despite their including an IETF invitation with their  
timely visa application to U.S. authorities?  If so, then that might  
be something worth investigating.

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:30:09 +0000

Song Haibin wrote:
> What can I say?
Well could you comment on the difficulty of getting
a Chinese visa to attend an ITU-T meeting in the run up to
the Olympics and the sudden change of application dates
and process by the Chinese government?

Stewart

---

From: Song Haibin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:07:55 +0800

>and process by the Chinese government?

I don't need to apply a Chinese visa, so I don't know the process. Just as
Americans don't need to apply a US visa, so they don't experience my long
time wait. But as far as I know, USA doesn't hold an Olympics in the coming
months.

I think Europe and Canada or Hongkong would be good choice.

Song Haibin

---

From: "William Herrin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:29:13 -0600

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:24 AM, YAO <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   be disallowed entry

Is this thread still going? Heck, just hold it on a boat. Change the
IETF conference into an IETF cruise in international waters.

In all seriousness though, the State Department is a bureaucracy and
like any bureaucracy it likes things that file into neatly prepared
categories. When an attendee presents a letter of invitation from the
IETF of Fremont, CA 94538, I imagine the first thing the investigator
does is go to http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/list.html and put in "Internet
Engineering Task Force." Failing to find anything, he might try the
same at http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Search.aspx?facility=Y
or another site like it. Finding nothing there, he might possibly go
to http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=ai1epe.1.1 and
search for IETF since the logo on the invitation letter claims to be a
registered trademark. This will lead him to something called the "IETF
Trust" of Reston Virginia. So, he may got to
http://www.scc.virginia.gov/clk/bussrch.aspx but that won't find
anything IETF. Since the meeting is held in Minnesota, he may try
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=792 as well, but he
still won't find anything.

Next the investigator may pick up the phone, call Wanda Lo and ask
what the heck this IETF thing is, but by then you've raised three Red
Flags: an organization that doesn't appear to legally exist at the
given address, has a trademarked registered on the other side of the
country to an entity that also doesn't appear to exist and is
allegedly holding a conference in still another part of the country
where it doesn't seem to legally exist. To an investigator who doesn't
know "Internet Engineering Task Force" from "George Walker Elementary
School Little League," that means your application goes into the
"we'll get back to you" queue.

I could be dead wrong. I've never worked in immigration and I don't
personally know anyone who has. But that's my SWAG.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ [email-masked]  [email-masked]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:46:53 +0100

Hi Bill,

> IETF conference into an IETF cruise in international waters.

And where would the boat pick up the participants without
requiring visa's.

It takes a containership 60 days to make a trip around the world
landing at major ports. A cruiseship would take longer.

Cheers, Huub.

-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:47:39 -0600

> IETF conference into an IETF cruise in international waters.

Just to be clear, unless the boat is an aircraft carrier, people will  
still need a visa to fly to where the ship is docked.

Bob

---

From: Michal Krsek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:55:42 -0600

> still need a visa to fly to where the ship is docked.

Lets raise domain registrations to $100 per domain per year (not a big 
deal for domain owners) and spend 85% of amount at Grumman Naval systems 
(or another neat company) to build a nice carrier for community? I also 
have several proposed names for the civil carrier.

Having satellite uplinks, we can also run one completelly independent 
copy of root nameservers.

                MK

---

From: Ed Jankiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:01:49 -0600

there are some guys off the coast of Somalia willing to convert a tanker 
they have recently "acquired" into a permanent floating home for IETF.

they don't require any paperwork if the price is right.

-- 
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research 
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  [email-masked]

---

From: Simon Leinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:03:26 +0100

Michal Krsek writes:
> (or another neat company) to build a nice carrier for community?

As a nethead, I am deeply opposed to the idea of a "carrier-grade"
IETF ship.  But if you call it a "large-scale ocean-based meeting
venue", then it's fine of course.
-- 
Simon.
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:34:36 -0600

> landing at major ports. A cruiseship would take longer.

That's no problem - the boat just needs to be a really big aircraft  
carrier.

---

From: Michal Krsek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:52:14 -0600

Hi Simon,

> venue", then it's fine of course.
Fine, what about "airplane exchange" ? :-)

So we need a some translator that may say what is behind the contract 
with Grumman. They know hot to build carriers, not venues :-)

                      MK

---

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:18:22 -0500

> That's no problem - the boat just needs to be a really big aircraft  

It would be more efficient to install a helipad and use helicopters to
take participants directly from their home countries to the venue ship.
(I suppose this doesn't work for landlocked countries, but there aren't
very many of them.)

Dale

---

From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:13:59 -0500

How about we deputize someone to go ask State what the best way to maximize
the probability of a prompt acceptance is?

---

From: "William Herrin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:17:38 -0600

> the probability of a prompt acceptance is?

Phillip-

Unfortunately, aside from the general instructions on the web site,
they won't tell you. Security through obscurity. ;)

-Bill

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:23:31 -0600

> they won't tell you. Security through obscurity. ;)

Maybe it would be more helpful to complain to the Chinese government,  
they'll have more incentive to solve this.

If the US decides that it doesn't want to let certain people in that  
is their right, but sitting on requests until it's too late is not  
good for anyone and I don't consider it an acceptable policy.
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: "Paul, Manuel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:54:51 +0100

> venue", then it's fine of course.

Unfortunately I can not agree - I'd preferably rely on a carrier-grade
steered ship! 
Having a large scale thing without any idea where it is cruising around
would rather play in the hands of the pirates (already waiting...).
Arriving maybe somewhere, having lost half of the critical load without
knowing where and why that happened is surely not the right thing to
satisfy any customers...

...not that I don't know that cruising around can be more fun
occasionally!

Manuel

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:10:23 -0600

>> venue", then it's fine of course.

Perhaps we could talk to the US government about renting the  
"Enterprise". That couldn't possibly be carrier-grade, could it?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-65.htm

--
Dean

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:33:48 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Maybe it would be more helpful to complain to the Chinese government, they'll
> have more incentive to solve this.

What makes you think this has ANYTHING to do with the Chinese 
government???

The delay or non-response is purely a matter for the US Embassy in 
Beijing unless I am missing something important. That is, the Chinese
government has no involvement whatsoever.

Oke

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:49:26 -0600

> What makes you think this has ANYTHING to do with the Chinese

The Chinese government, to state the obvious, is the government of Chinese 
citizens.  If Chinese citizens with legitimate business visiting the US are 
having trouble obtaining visas to do so, the US government is (marginally) 
more likely to be receptive to complaints from the Chinese government than 
from individual Chinese citizens.

-- Jeff

---

From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:53:38 -0500

The Chinese state dept and the US embassy in China spend much of their time
discussing precisely this sort of issue. That is their job.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:06:00 -0800 (PST)

Right, so what can we do to help?

Ole

---

From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:10:03 -0500

Have you tried, or is this just an assumption you are making?

Folk told me I was wasting my time when I proposed a White House Web site in
1992. If you make the right argument people usually do the right thing.

The argument I would make to state here is that if we can show that the
person who is applying for the visa has been contributing to the work of the
IETF for an extended time, there really is very little risk of them
overstaying their visa. People who might qualify for an H1B are unlikely to
risk their chances of obtaining one legitimately.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:10:16 -0600

> Right, so what can we do to help?

wait a year or so and hope for change in the usg.

until then, do not arrange meetings in the states.  e.g. any upcoming
interim.

randy

---

From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:15:51 -0500

Well the first thing to do would be to ask if anyone on this list has a card
in their file for someone who works at US state dept.

Then we need to ask them what the problem is that they are trying to solve

Then we need to put together a win-win proposal.

And then we need someone with a measure of IETF authority (IAB, Chair or
someone in the Secretariat) to pitch it.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:18:42 -0800 (PST)

The IAOC decided to get well ahead of the curve on this one and we 
tested the solution in Dublin ;-):

http://www.yikes.com/~ole/store/IAOC-copter.JPG

Nice ride. Shiny and black as you would expect. Seating limited to 
about 5 plus the pilot. Capital expense and operations cost on the
"high to extreme" side, but very enjoyable.

View of CityWest from a different angle:

http://www.yikes.com/~ole/store/CityWest.JPG

Ole

Note well: No ISOC, IETF, IAOC or other community funds were expended 
on this little adventure.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:19:58 -0800 (PST)

We actually have initiated just such an effort. Talking to an ex-State 
Dept person with lots of clue.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:30:46 -0500

On Nov 22, 2008, at 2:10 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The argument I would make to state here is that if we can show that  
> the person who is applying for the visa has been contributing to the  
> work of the IETF for an extended time, there really is very little  
> risk of them overstaying their visa. People who might qualify for an  
> H1B are unlikely to risk their chances of obtaining one legitimately.

This, along with the suggestion of making sure that the person  
processing the visa knows what the IETF is, are both excellent  
suggestions.   While I personally would be happy to do IETFs in  
Montreal instead of Minneapolis, because I really like Montreal, I get  
the impression that a lot of IETFers actually appreciate the  
opportunity to come to the 'States, pain in the neck though it may  
be.   So all kidding aside, I think it's worth exploring the  
suggestions people have made for how to solve this problem, rather  
than simply trying to step around it.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:43:57 -0600

For the record, such people often know what the word "Cisco" implies,  
and sending letters on that letterhead has been ineffective. I'm all  
for getting it solved, but I would not assume that fixes will be  
either quick or painless.

On Nov 22, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:

>> the person who is applying for the visa has been contributing to  
>> the work of the IETF for an extended time, there really is very  
>> little risk of them overstaying their visa. People who might  
>> qualify for an H1B are unlikely to risk their chances of obtaining  
>> one legitimately.
>
> Montreal instead of Minneapolis, because I really like Montreal, I  
> get the impression that a lot of IETFers actually appreciate the

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:31:09 -0500

--On Saturday, 22 November, 2008 13:43 -0600 Fred Baker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> For the record, such people often know what the word "Cisco"
> implies, and sending letters on that letterhead has been
> ineffective. I'm all for getting it solved, but I would not
> assume that fixes will be either quick or painless.

One observation in the hope of adding to Fred's attempt to bring
some reality to this discussion.

Lobbying for better or more rational polices _might_ have some
effect if the issue really were long-term policy.  But it,
whether focused on the role of the IETF or on multiple-time
visitors with specific skills, will do little to help if the
problem is either one or two visa officials having a bad week
and feeling a need to demonstrate how powerful they are (no real
evidence of that here, but there have been incidents of that in
the past) or a temporary, and usually petty, feud between
governments. In this case, it is hard to believe that there is
only a coincidental relationship between reports of US citizens
having trouble getting visas to enter China for the Olympics and
increased difficulties getting visas to visit some parts of the
country and the apparently-sudden increase in foot-dragging and
visa non-issuance by the US a few months later.

Of course, to the extent that this is "we can do it, therefore
we will" retaliation by US consular officials against the
perceived previous behavior of the Chinese government, the
latter government is involved, albeit indirectly.

If there is a real solution to this problem, short of putting
China on the recently-expanded visa waiver program list, it is
for the US to start issuing moderately long-term multiple-entry
visas to people who have been appropriately investigated and
cleared --once-- but who are frequent short-term visitors rather
than permanent residents.   That can't happen overnight because
it would require inventing a new category in a system that, IMO,
already has far too many categories.    But, if I wanted to
seriously lobby State, it would be for something along those
lines, with the request made in conjunction with other
professional societies, conference-holders, and relevant
multinational companies, not for a general policy of specific
better treatment for IETF attendees.

Just IMO, of course.

     john

p.s. for those harboring "ship" fantasies, I recommend careful
study of the IRS rules about meetings on cruise vessels.  While
it might, in principle, solve the visa problem if one could work
out the port of call/ where to catch the boat issue, those whose
participation is supported by organizations who need to pay
attention to their US tax bills might find that they had hit a
showstopper from another direction.

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:18:01 -0500

Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> The Chinese government, to state the obvious, is the government of
> Chinese citizens.  If Chinese citizens with legitimate business visiting
> the US are having trouble obtaining visas to do so, the US government is
> (marginally) more likely to be receptive to complaints from the Chinese
> government than from individual Chinese citizens.

Ahh, but would they (the US Govt) be receptive to complaints from US
Citizens?

> -- Jeff

-derek

-- 
Derek Atkins
Principal Software Engineer

PGP Corporation
4 Farragut Ave
Somerville, MA  02144

+1 617 623 3745 | [email-masked]

PGP Corporation -- Rest Secured.(TM)

PGP Fingerprint:
0FEE 5EA1 FF22 E0C9 4FFE
631A 9232 FF93 1C80 1DB7

This email and any attachments thereto may contain private,
confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any
attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and
permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any
attachments thereto.

---

From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:08:53 -0500

Your House member's staff certainly would be.

Yours in particular is likely to be considering running for the Senate

---

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:36:34 -0500

Regarding IETF meetings outside of the US, over the past 5 years (2003
to 2008) there have been 8 (out of 15 meetings) (5 of 15 have been
outside North America):

Dublin
Vancouver
Prague
Montreal
Vancouver
Paris
Seoul
Vienna

In all cases, attendance has been greater than, or just less than, one
of the consecutive meetings.  So we can conclude:

- meetings outside of North America have been underrepresented by at
most 50% (relative to GDP)

- meetings in Canada are overrepresented by about 600% (relative to GDP)

- meetings outside the US and outside North America do not suffer poor
attendance

In regard to the restriction of travel, freedom of expression, etc.,
someone needs to compare-and-contrast the US with other possible venues,
so that we can argue about which countries are acceptable.

On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 12:13 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> How about we deputize someone to go ask State what the best way to
> maximize the probability of a prompt acceptance is?

As John says, the problem could be some petty feud.  Even more likely is
that it is some common bureaucratic problem, such as a clerical position
that is not filled, an incompetent manager, etc.  Unfortunately,
visa-issuing is one part of the bureaucracy which never deals with
citizens, so the normal political feedback to enforce a minimum level of
performance is not in effect.

If we really want to know what is going wrong, we should ask someone
whose job depends on knowing what is going on, that is, a lawyer who
specializes in obtaining visas into the US.

Dale