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

From: "张国强" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:14:36 +0800

yes, it's really a problem that IETF meeting organizers should seriously consider.

�����������������ᵽ:
>From: "YAO" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: 
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3 of
draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
>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
>

_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: "Ross Callon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:37:38 -0500

I agree that this has been a significant issue, and that it is not appropriate to have a large number of meetings in a location where a significant number of potential attendees cannot get a visa to attend. For this reason I have been an advocate of having a disproportionate number of the North American meetings in Canada rather than the USA (to me the Vancouver and Montreal locations have been just as convenient as nearby US locations, and I assume that there must also be suitable facilities in Toronto and elsewhere). 

One thing that I wonder about is whether or not this will get better with the change of administrations in January. Thus I would be interested in hearing at the next two US IETFs (San Francisco in March 2009, and Anaheim in March 2010) whether people have had an easier time than they did at the current or past IETFs. 

Ross 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ???
Sent: 18 November 2008 10:15
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?

IETF Meeting Venue ?"

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:59:49 -0500

I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many
people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in
the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will
be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year
alone.

Quoting "Ross Callon" <[email-masked]>:

> I agree that this has been a significant issue, and that it is not  
> appropriate to have a large number of meetings in a location where a  
> significant number of potential attendees cannot get a visa to  
> attend. For this reason I have been an advocate of having a  
> disproportionate number of the North American meetings in Canada  
> rather than the USA (to me the Vancouver and Montreal locations have  
> been just as convenient as nearby US locations, and I assume that  
> there must also be suitable facilities in Toronto and elsewhere).
>
> One thing that I wonder about is whether or not this will get better  
> with the change of administrations in January. Thus I would be  
> interested in hearing at the next two US IETFs (San Francisco in  
> March 2009, and Anaheim in March 2010) whether people have had an  
> easier time than they did at the current or past IETFs.
>
> Ross
>
> From: [email-masked]  
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ???
> Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for  
> 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
>
>> Is USA qualified for 2.3 of  
>> draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria as
> IETF Meeting Venue ?"
>>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:26:02 -0600

> be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year

A tourist visa isn't that useful, and the criteria for getting it are  
fairly restrictive.   The criteria should allow anybody who is  
traveling to the U.S. on business to get one, and ought to exclude  
people who don't have visible means of support and a reason to return  
(I am not making a value judgment here, since I actually don't agree  
with U.S. policy on this, but simply stating what I understand the  
policy to be).

However unfortunately we have had increasing problems with the U.S.  
government being skeptical about visa applicants - several good  
friends of mine have been repeatedly denied entry to the U.S. because  
the person responsible for admitting them decided that they were at  
risk of overstaying their visa.   This is new, in the last year, and  
is the case even though these same people have a track record of /not/  
overstaying their visas based on past visits.   We recently tried to  
get a Tao master from China to come teach for a week, and despite  
repeated attempts, accompanied with excellent documentation, we were  
unable to get him a visa.

I don't think we can safely assume that the new administration will  
fix this problem quickly, because I think it's the result of an  
attitude shift at the department of state.   Shifting the attitude  
back in the right direction may be difficult.

So I think that the people here who are expressing concern about the  
ability to get across the border are talking about a real problem that  
probably will persist for a while, and I think the proposed solution-- 
having IETF conferences in Canada in preference to the U.S.--is  
probably a good one.   There are other North American locations that  
might work as well - Mexico City, for example.

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:28:56 -0600

> be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year

Having 100 million people paying the conference fee for the next IETF  
in San Francisco, just so they could get a 1-entry conference visa  
(which is what India offers at no cost for the IGF in Hyderabad),  
would radically change the economical situation for the IETF.

    Patrik

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:39:57 -0600

> be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year

thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the
us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united
states.

randy

---

From: "Eric Gray" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:41:04 -0600

Yeah, I agree.  Having 100 million people show up at a Hilton
hotel for a meeting would likely have us in litigation for 
decades.

Of course, it would be interesting to try to determine how 
large an area would be covered by hotel bookings for so many
attendees...

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:29 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:44:34 -0600

as Dr Strangelove tells us

"...this could easily be solved, with a computer ..."

-George

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:53:24 -0600

On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:

>  Mexico City, for example.
>

Sure, if you want 40% of our attendees kidnapped for ransom and  
another 20% arrested on faux charges and fined heavily. Mexico City is  
a HUGELY not safe place for people who don't know their way around.  
Those who DO know only travel with trusted bodyguards. Do you, for  
example, know the difference between Libre and Sitio taxis? Most  
people don't, but there is a big one . . . mostly, how many days the  
kidnappers hold you to keep pumping the ATM dry.

The US may be a pain for immigration purposes, but I don't think we're  
losing many people to crime in Minneapolis. Nobody mugs the locals;  
many are lawfully armed, and most of them wouldn't put up with that  
sort of behavior.

See:

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Minneapolis&state=MN

http://www.osac.gov/Reports/report.cfm?contentID=43999

--
Dean

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:56:33 -0600

On 18 nov 2008, at 10:26, Ted Lemon wrote:

> friends of mine have been repeatedly denied entry to the U.S.  
> because the person responsible for admitting them decided that they  
> were at risk of overstaying their visa.   This is new, in the last  
> year, and is the case even though these same people have a track  
> record of /not/ overstaying their visas based on past visits.

Would it be helpful to collect information about these cases and then  
initiate some kind of communication from the IETF towards the US  
authorities?
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:05:38 -0600

On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Would it be helpful to collect information about these cases and  
> then initiate some kind of communication from the IETF towards the  
> US authorities?

The people I'm talking about were trying to come to teachings at my  
Dharma center--I only mention them because it's a relatively small  
population and yet we've been hit with a fairly significant number of  
visa denials, and I know the details of the cases, so I can talk about  
them.   Our experience with the Tao master was that the appeals  
process didn't work in time for him to come, even though we'd been  
planning months in advance.   Possibly if we'd started a year in  
advance it would have worked out, but obviously that wasn't practical  
for us, and certainly it's not practical for the IETF.

We are in fact working the issue, and I hope we will learn more as  
time goes on.   And we may indeed try to get some reforms pushed  
through.   My main point in responding was simply to say that it is in  
fact a serious problem, there has in fact been a change in policy or  
culture that's causing the problem, letters of invitation do not  
entirely solve the problem, and we cannot expect the problem to go  
away in the near future.   In two years, maybe.   This year,  
definitely not.

---

From: "Mike McBride (mmcbride)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:09:27 -0800

> > government being skeptical about visa applicants - several good 

I, for one, I'm grateful the U.S. is a pain in the visa arse. In behalf
of my country, sorry for the headaches, but I think its fair to be a bit
skeptical after 9/11. More Canada mtgs sounds great. 

mike

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:07:25 -0800

At 10:53 AM -0600 11/18/08, Dean Willis wrote:

>  Do you, for example, know the difference between Libre and Sitio 
> taxis? Most people don't, but there is a big one . . . mostly, how 
> many days the kidnappers hold you to keep pumping the ATM dry.

I admit I had never even heard of either of these taxi companies 
before, but now I'm intrigued.  What is the difference in the number 
of days each hold victims?  How do people learn the respective 
policies of the companies in this regard?  And, of course, why the 
difference?  Wouldn't each company want to extract the maximum ransom?

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
"!sgub evah t'nseod CP sihT ?sgub naem ayaddahW"
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: Nicholas Weaver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:11:11 -0600

> http://www.osac.gov/Reports/report.cfm?contentID=43999

The current report is here:
https://www.osac.gov/Reports/report.cfm?contentID=79890

Note that the situation has NOT improved, but actually gone downhill  
in the past couple of years.

---

From: Ed Jankiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:27:20 -0600

If we could separate the humor from the serious issue here (assuming the 
100 million was facetious), it would be interesting to know how many (if 
any) spurious applications for visas that an IETF meeting would 
generate.  If the issue is that the US State Dept. can't sort through a 
huge number of irrelevant applications (i.e. those attempting to game 
the visa system) to find to the qualified attendees that is one 
problem.  If the issue is that 3-4 months is not sufficient for a small 
number (<1000) of bona-fide applicants to get approved, that is a 
different problem.  In either case, it would behoove all US participants 
to write their representatives to influence the State Department to 
modify procedures to facilitate the timely processing of qualified 
applicants (many of whom are repeat attendees at IETF).  If 
international contributors cannot attend meetings in the US, more 
meetings will have to be outside the US, there could be significantly 
less US participation, and one more instance of short-sighted American 
protectionism resulting in a reduced US role in a vital international 
organization.  That's as jingoistic as I get - it is definitely in US 
interest to fully participate in the global economy and facilitate 
international efforts like IETF.  And I want the US to influence and 
benefit from the future of the Internet.

Speaking purely as an individual, not representing my company or our 
customers.

Might I suggest to the powers-that-be that they come up with proposed 
text for a "letter to my congressman" that would help solve this 
problem?  I notice on the attendee list that there are a number of 
registered folks who did not pay (assume that means they could not come) 
and the majority of them are non-US.  That indicates to me that this has 
become a serious impediment to some folks attending when meetings are in 
the US, and I for one would like to see some portion of meetings to 
remain in the US.  Many of my colleagues have the opposite problem, 
being a difficulty with getting funding approval for international 
travel for conferences, and I would like to see more of them 
participating at IETF. 

On the other hand, Canada is a reasonable stop-gap to faciltate non-US 
participation without too much additional burden on US participants.  
Both Vancouver and Montreal were nice meeting locations, and Toronto 
should be as well.  For those of us on the east coast of USA, Toronto 
and Montreal are closer that several large US cities, and Vancouver is 
quite convenient for folks on the west coast.

Ed J.

---

From: Max Pala <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:42:06 -0600

Hello,

I am sorry to say this mike, but hiding every problem behind the fear of
9/11 is not wise, and definitely not effective. Security can be achieved
in many ways and denying a piece of paper is not one of those, IMHO.

The issue of Visas for the IETF is serious, and definitely it should be
addressed. There are many people that could help in this as they are involved
with the US authorities - I hope that they will be willing to help for
future meetings.

Personally I support the idea of having more meetings in Canada (or better
would be south-america - e.g., Argentina - during the winter :D) to allow
more people to participate.

Cheers,

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:12:21 +0100

And there goes the paranoia of people who get scared every time they
cross a border. They are always so evil on the other side. There are
parts of Philadelphia where I believe exactly the same applies, yet we
have meetings there.

But the main thing about anywhere in Mexico is that to get a reasonable
selection of ecomonical flights, you need to transit through the US to
get there, as as the US does not have any international transit, guess
what, you need to enter the US to do that.

regards

Keith

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dean Willis
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 4:53 PM
> To: Ted Lemon
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Sure, if you want 40% of our attendees kidnapped for ransom 
> and another 20% arrested on faux charges and fined heavily. 
> Mexico City is a HUGELY not safe place for people who don't 
> know their way around.  
> Those who DO know only travel with trusted bodyguards. Do 
> you, for example, know the difference between Libre and Sitio 
> taxis? Most people don't, but there is a big one . . . 
> mostly, how many days the kidnappers hold you to keep pumping 
> the ATM dry.
> 
> The US may be a pain for immigration purposes, but I don't 
> think we're losing many people to crime in Minneapolis. 
> Nobody mugs the locals; many are lawfully armed, and most of 
> them wouldn't put up with that sort of behavior.
> 
> See:
>

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:53:43 -0600

> us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united

How would you solve the problem?  Let 100 million people in on false
pretenses?  I'm not going to defend the behavior of the US government,
but I want you to admit that US immigration has a difficult problem.
Slinging labels around doesn't help.
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:16:03 -0600

> How would you solve the problem?

hold the meetings in non-terrorist countries.  i.e. not the united states.

randy

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:22:41 -0500

> hold the meetings in non-terrorist countries.  i.e. not the united states.

I don't know what that means.  Canada, for example, is a peacekeeper
nation that requires visas for entry from countries from which there are
many IETF participants (India, China).  Is the issue the visa requirement
itself or is it how visas are processed?

Melinda

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:26:52 -0600

> Slinging labels around doesn't help.

More funding for the State Department would be good.   They're badly  
underfunded and really overworked.   But the 100 million canard is  
just that - there are procedures in place for managing this problem,  
and they've historically worked.   The problem we are having now is  
the result of a real change in the way visa applications are being  
processed - specifically, an increase in the number of perfectly  
legitimate applications that are being rejected.

---

From: Nicholas Weaver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:40:58 -0600

> Slinging labels around doesn't help.

Remember, the IETF is NOT special.  There are tens of thousands of  
conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal.   
If the US gave effectively carte blanch to conference attendees, you  
would have no immigration controls, period, as this would be a big  
enough loophole to fly an A380 through.

The Visa issue in the US is serious, but how many people are really  
affected by this?

We need hard data, because the notion of simply "not holding IETF  
meetings in a terrorist country" is not effective.

And if you want to do Visa issues as a criteria, you can strongly  
argue that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not  
required for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:53:52 +0100

> kidnappers hold you to keep pumping the ATM dry. 
it will be interesting for those who hope that ICANN will curl up and 
blow away that the next meeting of ICANN is scheduled to be held in 
Mexico City.

If I survive, I should be able to speak more authoritatively of the 
experience when we get to San Francisco.

                        Harald

---

From: "David Quigley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:56:18 -0600

Disclaimer: What I say here are my words and don't represent the views of my
employer.

>From what I see here the issues are mostly experienced by Chinese citizens.
Most of the other countries have reciprocal visa agreements with the US.
China however doesn't have that agreement with Ireland, Sweden, Japan, or
the US. Were there similar problems with gaining entrance into Ireland? Will
there be similar issues with gaining entrance into Sweden or Japan?

Dave

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Nicholas Weaver
<[email-masked]>wrote:

> conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal.  If the
> US gave effectively carte blanch to conference attendees, you would have no
> immigration controls, period, as this would be a big enough loophole to fly
> an A380 through.
>
> We need hard data, because the notion of simply "not holding IETF meetings
> in a terrorist country" is not effective.
>
> And if you want to do Visa issues as a criteria, you can strongly argue
> that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not required
> for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens.
>
>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:56:51 +0100

Mike McBride (mmcbride) wrote:
>>> However unfortunately we have had increasing problems with 
>>>       
>> the U.S.  
>>     
I have not yet heard of a single Chinese national arrested as a 
terrorist in the US.
The last person I remember being executed for a terrorist act in the US 
was born in Lockport, New York.

But don't let me pollute this interesting discussion with inconvenient 
facts.

                Harald

---

From: Yi Zhao <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:04:56 -0600

Based on my knowledge, for Chinese citizens there is no any problem to get
the visa to other countries except US. 

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of David Quigley
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:56 PM
To: Nicholas Weaver
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified
for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?

Dave

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Nicholas Weaver <[email-masked]>
wrote:

[email-masked] wrote:

The Visa issue in the US is serious, but how many people are really affected
by this?

And if you want to do Visa issues as a criteria, you can strongly argue that
all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not required for
travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens.

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:08:35 -0800

Yi Zhao wrote:
> Based on my knowledge, for Chinese citizens there is no any problem to
> get the visa to other countries except US.

I know for a fact that several of your countrymen have had trouble
obtaining visas for other recent IETF destinations.

>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *From:* [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *David Quigley
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:56 PM
> *To:* Nicholas Weaver
> *Cc:* [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified
> Disclaimer: What I say here are my words and don't represent the views
> of my employer.
> 
>  
> 
> From what I see here the issues are mostly experienced by Chinese
> citizens. Most of the other countries have reciprocal visa agreements
> with the US. China however doesn't have that agreement with Ireland,
> Sweden, Japan, or the US. Were there similar problems with gaining
> entrance into Ireland? Will there be similar issues with gaining
> entrance into Sweden or Japan?
> 
>  
> 
> Dave
> 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal.  If
> the US gave effectively carte blanch to conference attendees, you would
> have no immigration controls, period, as this would be a big enough
> loophole to fly an A380 through.
> 
> that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Yi Zhao <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:21:52 -0600

There might be few cases due to mishandling of the visa application (such as
late submission or document missing). In general, there shouldn't be a
problem to get a visa to other countries especially for a business visa to
attend conference.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:50:50 -0600

Melinda Shore wrote:
> Is the issue the visa requirement itself or is it how visas are
> processed?

from my pov, the latter.  is it easy for folk from all countries to get
to the ietf meetings?  for example, that chinese have problems getting
to this meeting is a major and embarrassing disaster.

randy

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:08:23 -0600

The folks to contact are the IAOC. The IETF Chair is on the IAOC.

As to visa issues, as Randy opines, the issue tends to be visa  
processing. Depending on country pair, there are interesting issues  
around the globe. The US Embassies in China and Russia seem to not  
have IETF attendance on their list of important events for the Chinese  
or Russians to attend - or anything else that happens in the US. Last  
year, when I was asked to speak at RANS and specifically speak on a  
panel chaired by the Colonel-General that runs Department K  
(cybercrime) of the Russian police, the FSB decided that they needed  
to look at my visa application, and calmly told me that the  
announcement would come on the day that I was to speak. We could  
discuss, as someone else mentioned in this thread, the gymnastics  
necessary to enter China last summer; I visited in June, August, and  
October, and went through some serious dance steps each time.

We could discuss the various countries in the middle east, or what  
folks in Asia often call "western asia"; 'nuff said. And then there is  
China vs Taiwan, regardless of how you parse the Taiwan Straits issue.

I would be hesitant to drag the IETF into world politics; the law of  
Unintended Consequences was invented to describe politics, I think.

On Nov 18, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Gene Gaines wrote:

> Two points:
>
> 1)  As a U.S. citizen, I apologize for the statement made on this  
> thread
>      by [email-masked].  I quietly suggest to all that it be ignored.
>
>      I am he misspoke -- perhaps the laptop slipped in his lap at  
> IETF73.
>
> 2)  Again as a U.S. citizen, I will contact the IETF Chair and ISOC  
> management
>      to volunteer to assist in resolving the issue of IETF meeting  
> attendance.
>
>      There is substantially less of a problem here than most  
> realize.  The real
>      issue is certainty -- the IETF needs to obtain clear  
> instructions, obtain the
>      cooperation of U.S. government officials so that people from  
> any country
>      can know well in advance AND WITH CERTAINTY the process of  
> applying
>      for and obtaining authorization for attending an IETF meeting  
> anywhere in
>      the world.
>
>      If this cannot be accomplished, then the IETF should not meet  
> in that
>      country.
>
> Gene Gaines
> Sterling, Virginia USA
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>  
> wrote:
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:13:40 -0600

> parts of Philadelphia where I believe exactly the same applies, yet we

Yeah, but in Philly I too could travel about armed . . . Not so in  
Mexico City.

Seriously: American companies who do business in Mexico City generally  
have contracts with security companies to provide escort/driver  
support for their employees. At the very least, one stays in a high- 
grade hotel and hire their referrals for driver/escort. One does NOT  
walk about or use public transit. Study up on "express kidnappings".

We might have had four hundred pockets picked in Paris, but that beats  
four hundred kidnappings any day. Except maybe if just the right  
people disappeared ;-).

Three weeks ago, my friend Camilo was beaten with rifle butts by  
Mexican Army soldiers after they kicked in the door to his brother's  
house in the middle of the night. Apparently somebody had given them  
the wrong address on a tip-off. This is a pretty standard occurrence.

> what, you need to enter the US to do that.

That's also a very good issue.

--
Dean

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:16:15 -0600

On Nov 18, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

>> another 20% arrested on faux charges and fined heavily. Mexico City  
>> is a HUGELY not safe place for people who don't know their way  
>> around. Those who DO know only travel with trusted bodyguards. Do  
> it will be interesting for those who hope that ICANN will curl up  
> and blow away that the next meeting of ICANN is scheduled to be held  
> in Mexico City.
>

Harald, I'd like to say now that I've enjoyed knowing you, since I  
might not get to say that again. Vaya con Dios!

--
Dean

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:20:34 -0600

at the afnog meeting in abuja nigeria, no one was molested in any way,
despite folk walking 0.5km to an atm in the evening etc.

at least one of the same people was mugged at a meeting in sf.

there are silly people everywhere.  there are nice people everywhere.

of course, there are few terrorist nations invading and occupying
countries half way around the world.  perhaps our arrogance should
embarrass us.

randy

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:22:26 -0800

Dean,

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:53:24AM -0600, Dean Willis wrote:
> Sure, if you want 40% of our attendees kidnapped for ransom and another 
> 20% arrested on faux charges and fined heavily. Mexico City is a HUGELY 
> not safe place for people who don't know their way around. Those who DO 
> know only travel with trusted bodyguards. Do you, for example, know the 
> difference between Libre and Sitio taxis? Most people don't, but there is 
> a big one . . . mostly, how many days the kidnappers hold you to keep 
> pumping the ATM dry.

This still doesn't even come close to your description of the safety
situation in Dallas (see mail below).

We survived Dallas so why not a meeting in Mexico City ?

David Kessens
---

  Logistics Warning for Dallas Meeting

    * /To/: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs at ietf.org
      <mailto:[email-masked]>>
    * /Subject/: Logistics Warning for Dallas Meeting
    * /From/: Dean Willis <dean.willis at softarmor.com
      <mailto:[email-masked]>>
    * /Date/: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:14:47 -0600
    * /In-reply-to/: <[email-masked]
      <msg04067.html>>
    * /Sender/: wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org <mailto:[email-masked]>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just noticed that the Dallas IETF will be at the Anatole hotel. It's a
very nice hotel, in general, BUT . . .

I've lived in the Dallas area for most of the last twenty years, and
have had the dubious honor of attending many events at that hotel. There
are are some important things to know about the logistics as you plan
your between-meeting schedules, ad-hocs, bar bofs, and things of that sort.

Cars are MANDATORY, but almost useless, due to traffic issues.

First off, the hotel is in the middle of Hell. It's on Interstate 35,
surrounded by a no-mans land territory in which I would be unwilling to
walk while wearing body armor and carrying an automatic rifle without an
entire platoon of people similarly equipped and helicopter gunships and
medevac on standby. The little strip along the highway is only
terrifying, but once you get off of that you walk in the Valley of the
Shadow of Death itself. It MIGHT be a little safer than urban Iraq is
right now, but not by much.

Second, there is very little in the way of restaurants or entertainment
within walking distance (like, absolutely nothing I'm aware of) anyhow.

There are a number of dining facilities in the hotel, but they will not
be adequate to the number of people we're bringing. This means that many
of us will be going off-campus (in cars) for meals. The traffic in this
area is HORRIBLE around peak hours -- between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM
weekdays. I'd estimate a minimum of twenty minutes transit time each way
for anything you want to go do, and longer if you want to find a decent
place. Imagine the worst traffic you've seen in Washington DC, New York
City, or Highway 101 in California. Then imagine it worse, if you can.
That's a good day in Dallas, and some days get very bad indeed.

The good news (hah!) is you're only a few blocks from Dallas' most
notorious (but recently somewhat cleaned up) red-light district. The bad
news is that this is a very scary place with high levels of criminality,
unlike any place I'm aware of in Europe (they're probably there, but
tourists don't find them). The worse news is that the housing projects
are on the other side. While the hotel itself maintains some security in
parking areas, I'd suggest leaving NOTHING of value in your car. Also,
study up on "car jacking" and ways to avoid it.

Dallas cabs are very expensive, and almost impossible to hail if you get
away from the hotels. Keep a list of cab company phone numbers with you
if you're going to rely on taxis. The good news is that the taxis
themselves are fairly well-regulated and unlikely to completely abuse you.

Avoid reliance on public mass transportation in this area at all costs.
The area is not served by trains, and the buses are used only by local
residents who are used to coping with them.

--
Dean

---

From: Massimiliano Pala <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:33:46 -0600

Hello,

I am sorry to say this mike, but hiding every problem behind the fear of
9/11 is not wise and nor fair. Security can be achieved in many ways and
denying a piece of paper is not one of those, IMHO.

The issue of Visas for the IETF is serious, and definitely it should be
addressed. There are many people that could help in this as they are involved
with the US authorities - I hope that they will be willing to help.

Personally I support the idea of having more meetings in Canada (or better
would be south-america - e.g., Argentina - during the winter :D)

Cheers,

-- 

Best Regards,

	Massimiliano Pala

--o------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massimiliano Pala [OpenCA Project Manager]  [email-masked]
                                                  [email-masked]

Dartmouth Computer Science Dept               Home Phone: +1 (603) 369-9332
PKI/Trust Laboratory                          Work Phone: +1 (603) 646-9179
--o------------------------------------------------------------------------

People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us
who do.
							   -- Isaac Asimov
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:03:08 -0600

> us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united

Folks who have read ietf mailing lists for awhile might have noticed that it's 
distinctive when John Klensin and I agree and, therefore, probably worth taking 
as significant.  The joke is old enough to have gotten stale, but it's still true.

However, that's nothing compared with the number of times I agree with Randy.

This is one of them.

Surely there is enough choice in venue to permit a global organization like the 
IETF to select ones that put some effort into being friendly about participation 
by people from a wider set of countries?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:27:41 +0200

Hi everybody,

In the IAOC, we have followed the visa situation for different nations
closely. It is obviously in the benefit for the IETF to have all the
participants that want and need to come to the IETF could also come.

Historically, the IETF community has indicated the preference of having a
big part of the meetings in the North American region. This makes us often
come to the USA. Traditionally a major part of the participation is from the
North American region.

Of course, we should periodically check this policy, and also follow the
visa situation very carefully.

I think it would be good for people that were trying to come to the IETF and
couldn't to tell the IAD or me what happened. Accurate data is very
important.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: "Gene Gaines" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:50:11 -0500

Two points:

1)  As a U.S. citizen, I apologize for the statement made on this thread
     by [email-masked].  I quietly suggest to all that it be ignored.

     I am he misspoke -- perhaps the laptop slipped in his lap at IETF73.

     There is substantially less of a problem here than most realize.  The
real
     issue is certainty -- the IETF needs to obtain clear instructions,
obtain the
     cooperation of U.S. government officials so that people from any
country
     can know well in advance AND WITH CERTAINTY the process of applying
     for and obtaining authorization for attending an IETF meeting anywhere
in
     the world.

     If this cannot be accomplished, then the IETF should not meet in that
     country.

Gene Gaines
Sterling, Virginia USA

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:32:18 -0600

On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:22 PM, David Kessens wrote:

>> another

Apparently folks listened to my advice in Dallas and stayed out of the  
bad neighborhoods.

Seriously though: Mexico City on average is as bad as Dallas at its  
worst.

--
Dean

---

From: Matthew Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:53:48 -0600

> participants that want and need to come to the IETF could also come.

Seems like the UK might offer a solution:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7736010.stm

"officials were "under pressure" to issue - rather than reject - visas 
to meet productivity targets."

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:56:09 -0500

I recall stats from IETF 71 (which may be out of date).  I believe at
that time, 48% of attendees were from the U.S.  Next was Japan with 9%,
then China with 5.7%.  If I recall correctly, this was a good number of
attendees from China, but I do not know how that compared to IETF 72 or
to IETF 73.  Is the visa issue for visitors from all countries coming to
the U.S., or is this specific to Chinese citizens coming to the U.S.

Jason 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 3:28 PM
> To: ext Joel Jaeggli; Yi Zhao
> Cc: 'David Quigley'; [email-masked]; 'Nicholas Weaver'; 
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA 
> qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
> 
> Hi everybody,
> 
> In the IAOC, we have followed the visa situation for 
> different nations closely. It is obviously in the benefit for 
> the IETF to have all the participants that want and need to 
> come to the IETF could also come.
> 
> Historically, the IETF community has indicated the preference 
> of having a big part of the meetings in the North American 
> region. This makes us often come to the USA. Traditionally a 
> major part of the participation is from the North American region.
> 
> Of course, we should periodically check this policy, and also 
> follow the visa situation very carefully.
> 
> I think it would be good for people that were trying to come 
> to the IETF and couldn't to tell the IAD or me what happened. 
> Accurate data is very important.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jonne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> Based on my knowledge, for Chinese citizens there is no 
> any problem 
> >> to get the visa to other countries except US.
> > 
> >> Disclaimer: What I say here are my words and don't represent the 
> >> views of my employer.
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >> <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> argue that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is 
> >> not required for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian 
> citizens.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>

---

From: Nicholas Weaver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:04:07 -0600

> the U.S., or is this specific to Chinese citizens coming to the U.S.

The US offers a large number in the Visa Waiver program:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html

Which is basically EU + Japan + australia,

Plus Canada under a different category.

I would bet (but have no evidence) that the visa problem is almost  
specifically a chinese issue.

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:04:43 +0100

You can find document statistics here which detail where the authors of
our life and blood come from:

http://www.arkko.com/tools/docstats

Take a look at the one for authors of current drafts here:

http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-countryeudistr.html

Could not find the meeting participation statistics, although I am sure
they are lurking somewhere.

regards

Keith 

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Livingood, Jason
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:56 PM
> To: Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo); ext Joel Jaeggli; Yi Zhao
> Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is 
> USAqualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
> 
> I recall stats from IETF 71 (which may be out of date).  I 
> believe at that time, 48% of attendees were from the U.S.  
> Next was Japan with 9%, then China with 5.7%.  If I recall 
> correctly, this was a good number of attendees from China, 
> but I do not know how that compared to IETF 72 or to IETF 73. 
>  Is the visa issue for visitors from all countries coming to 
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf 
> > Of Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)
> different nations 
> > Historically, the IETF community has indicated the preference of 
> > having a big part of the meetings in the North American 
> region. This 
> > makes us often come to the USA. Traditionally a major part of the 
> > participation is from the North American region.
> > 
> > Of course, we should periodically check this policy, and 
> also follow 
> > the visa situation very carefully.
> > 
> > I think it would be good for people that were trying to come to the 
> > IETF and couldn't to tell the IAD or me what happened.

---

From: Max Pala <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:16:24 -0600

Nicholas Weaver wrote:
[...]
> specifically a chinese issue.

Aren't you missing a... continent, i.e. Africa ? AFAIK, people from many
African countries potentially incur into VISA problems.

Later,
Max

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:24:33 -0600

> African countries potentially incur into VISA problems.

and the gulf states.  and ...

randy

---

From: "YAO Jiankang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:09:10 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nicholas Weaver" <[email-masked]>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Nicholas Weaver" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USAqualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?

> Which is basically EU + Japan + australia,

yes, sure.
all these countries are developed countries.

IETFers from developing countries are not easy to get a visa to USA.

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:58:19 -0300

>specifically a chinese issue.

It is NOT a chinese issue. I have got my USA visa, but it IS an issue 
to get it.

Fernando Gont (from Argentina)

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:18:07 -0600

On Nov 18, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) wrote:

> IETF and couldn't to tell the IAD or me what happened. Accurate data  
> is very important.

I spoke with colleagues at Tsinghua last night. Apparently some 30  
people that had intended to come from China were unable to for visa  
reasons. The issue is basically the US Embassy; they have historically  
gone out of their way in what appears to be a concerted effort to make  
Chinese travel to the US difficult. Last year I brought a post-doc  
from Xian to give a talk, and the embassy process took a couple of  
months including rewriting the letter of support to include a specific  
sequence of words that appeared to be important to someone.

That of course goes both ways; going to China is never trivial for me,  
and last summer it was a real issue. And we could discuss Russia; last  
year when I spoke on a panel chaired by the head of Department K of  
the Interior Ministry (Cybercrime), the FSB decided they additionally  
needed to review the application, and told me that they would reach a  
decision on the day I was scheduled to speak at RANS. If we discount  
US locations, we may also be forced to discount those.
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:21:45 -0600

On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:

> Is the visa issue for visitors from all countries coming to the  
> U.S., or is this specific to Chinese citizens coming to the U.S.

My understanding, which others should corroborate, is that it relates  
to specific countries. China is the one I hear about, and I know  
Russia to be on the list. I wouldn't be too surprised to find middle- 
eastern countries to have some issues; a few months ago the customs  
people asked me about a 2005 visa to Afghanistan in my passport, and  
my son was asked some questions following a month-long study tour in  
Cairo, and we are US citizens.
_______________________________________________
73attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees

---

From: "James Seng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:49:12 +0800

I spend most of my time in China now and was told numerous people in
China was not able to obtain VISA for the IETF, including folks who
have being granted VISA regularly for IETF and other technical
meetings. Yao is one of them and also Xiaodong, one of the earlier
participants in IETF.

Would be interesting to know the stats of the breakdown, not just in
percentage, but also absolute number, if there is any major change.

Holding meeting in Canada may not sound like a bad idea actually.

-James Seng

---

From: "Tom.Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:26:34 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave CROCKER" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [73attendees] IsUSA qualified for
> by people from a wider set of countries?

I find the USA a friendly country to visit for work.

Homeland Security and its predecessors have requirements that I must meet, and
these change with time.  But I always know what there are (only sometimes
lacking a precise date of introduction) so I can be prepared, going right back
to B1 and B2 visas.  I have never had any surprises when I arrive in Atlanta.

And when things go wrong, eg forgetting to hand in the second part of the green
card, then the solution is available, eg the web site to contact is in the
national press every six months or so.

There is no other country in the world where it is so easy to find out what to
do, you just need to allow time to let it happen (eg don't have a connecting
flight out of Atlanta one hour later).

The USA is also incredibly well served by flights making it cheaper for me to
travel from Europe to Minneapolis than it is to travel to eg Vienna or Estonia.

The USA also shares a language - well, sort of - with that of the I-Ds so there
is only one language to learn.

Currency?  Mmm could do with a weaker dollar right now, but that will change.

By contrast, I have found Canada (Toronto) the most unfriendly place to arrive
at, with the unexpected checks before I was (eventually) allowed in.

Incidentally, what has Malta got going for it, that it should be the location of
a Mega-Interim in less than two months time? Could it be the winter sunshine?

Tom Petch

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:34:58 -0800 (PST)

Dave,

The IAOC is aware of the situation with respect to visas for visitors 
from mainland China at this particular IETF meeting. Generally 
speaking, applicants are NOT refused visas, they just don't get a
reply (or a visa) in time and they may never get a reply at all.

We are not sure what happened this time, but we believe the "no reply" 
rate was much higher than normal and we will be working with various
parties to try to make this easier in the future.

It's worth noting that the visa situation for most countries in the 
world is by no means "static" so it's not just as simple as picking
a list of venues with the most favorable visa situation, as this may
have changed by the time we get round to having the meeting --- which,
as you know, we try to schedule as far in advance as possible, in
the 1 - 2 year range.

As for being "dragged into politics," this is unfortunately not easy
to avoid either. I probably don't need to mention the three^H^H^H^H^Hone
China issue for example.

Ole (IAOC Meetings subcommittee chair)

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

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> It's not a matter of being dragged into politics.  (Or at least, it shouldn't
> be.)
> 
> It's essentially an engineering task of working to maximize the ability of
> people to attend IETF meetings, by looking for venues where visa processing is
> the least problematic.
> 
> That does not mean "no visas" or anything else simplistic, except that border
> controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers.
> 
> d/
> --

---

From: "YAO Jiankang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:03:52 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ole Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?

> reply (or a visa) in time and they may never get a reply at all.

You are right. We can not get a reply at all. Most persons applied the visa in Sep.(almost 2 months in advance of the ietf meeting ).  As a rule of Visa office,
we can not check the status from the visa office during the period of our application. The only answer they will say is  "just wait, when the visa is available, you will get a notice. "  Normally, when the ietf meeting begins, sometimes we will get a call from visa office, which said "sorry since the meeting has already began, we can not issue the visa to you this time. pls apply it next time."

> parties to try to make this easier in the future.

thanks.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:10:22 -0000

> and last summer it was a real issue.

I think YMMV.
Over the summer my wife got a Chinese visa in 24 hour turn-around from a 
Visa office 190 miles from our home without having to visit.

But then we live in the UK.

Adrian

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:18:51 -0600

> Unintended Consequences was invented to describe politics, I think.

It's not a matter of being dragged into politics.  (Or at least, it shouldn't be.)

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:18:48 +0100

"Fred Baker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> around the globe.

You're absolutely right!

This is an issue which has come up time and time again.

At IETF Dublin, some attendants did not manage to get an Irish Visa in
time.
At ICANN Cairo, some attendants from some other middle eastern country
got their visa application refused.

Wherever you stage the next IETF meeting, there will be Visa issues
for somebody, such is the international reach of IETF and such is
life.

O.

-- 
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D
Global Information Highway Ltd
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:02:37 -0600

> reply (or a visa) in time and they may never get a reply at all.

The key point is that there was a pattern of failure to get a visa.  To me, the 
remaining details are purely secondary.

> parties to try to make this easier in the future.

My concern is with hearing about a pattern of problems over the last several 
years, for people from a range of countries.  The issue is not specific to this 
meeting or a single country.

Added to this, of course, is that in the last few years, the U.S. has lost its 
Most Favored Nation status as a travel destination

No venue will be perfect, but among the complex mix of factors affecting choice 
of IETF meeting sites, travel hassles that include government bureaucracy and 
social (dis)favor ought to be included, to the extent that we have evidence they 
affect attendance.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:25:00 -0600

I think we could easily replay responses from similar threads involving 
previous IETFs, and no one would notice.

Let me try to suggest a conclusion that should be generally easy to support:

1. We have problems, severe problems in people's ability to participate
2. The problems vary in place and quantity
3. We have zero effect on politics
4. Canada is nice country
5. Rotation spreads the pain

With this in mind, I think my input to the IAOC is that you should pay 
attention to #4 and #5; four out of the six meetings on the meeting list 
are in the U.S. Of course, you also need to think about other things, 
such as getting sponsors or finding hotels. The combined optimization 
problem is not trivial and I don't envy your task...

Jari

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:11:57 -0600

I do agree with Jari and would like to add:
- given possible less budgets for travels in coming months
- and difficulties to get to meeting for some people.

"invest" (not necessarily money, but time) in tools to be more and more
remote participation ready.  Visas are somewhat easier to get over the
cyberspace... ;-)

Marc.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:16:31 -0600

Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Visas are somewhat easier to get over the cyberspace... ;-)

people are working on solving that problem, and your favorite vendors
and carriers are helping provide the solutions.

randy

---

From: Phillip Hallam-baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:45:33 -0600

Let us ask a different question

In what ways can the ietf act to maximize the information available to  
the embassy in question to enable them to determine that the  
application comes from an active ietf participant?

A letter of invitation to a conference is likely to carry less  
information than a statement that person x has been an active wg  
participant for five years yadda yadda yadda

Sent from my iPhone 3G

On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:02 PM, Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The key point is that there was a pattern of failure to get a visa.   
> To me, the remaining details are purely secondary.
>
>
>> We are not sure what happened this time, but we believe the "no  
>> reply" rate was much higher than normal and we will be working with  
>> various
> My concern is with hearing about a pattern of problems over the last  
> several years, for people from a range of countries.  The issue is  
> not specific to this meeting or a single country.
>
> Added to this, of course, is that in the last few years, the U.S.  
> has lost its Most Favored Nation status as a travel destination
>
> No venue will be perfect, but among the complex mix of factors  
> affecting choice of IETF meeting sites, travel hassles that include  
> government bureaucracy and social (dis)favor ought to be included,  
> to the extent that we have evidence they affect attendance.
>
> d/
> -- 
>
>  Dave Crocker

---

From: Raj Yaralagadda <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:10:52 -0800 (PST)

Hi 

Hold the meeting In Singapore Most of the Countries do not need Visa, Visa on Arrival, 15 Days to 3 months for  EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens will get on Arrival.

I'm Singaporean i don't need visa to travel to most of the places. 

 ---------------------
Sincerely
Raj
T: +65 8229 0283
E: [email-masked] 

________________________________
From: Nicholas Weaver <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; Nicholas Weaver <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:40:58 AM
Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?

> Slinging labels around doesn't help.

Remember, the IETF is NOT special.  There are tens of thousands of conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal.  If the US gave effectively carte blanch to conference attendees, you would have no immigration controls, period, as this would be a big enough loophole to fly an A380 through.

The Visa issue in the US is serious, but how many people are really affected by this?

We need hard data, because the notion of simply "not holding IETF meetings in a terrorist country" is not effective.

And if you want to do Visa issues as a criteria, you can strongly argue that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not required for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens.