Subject: RE: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?

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  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [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 
> 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
> 
> On 18 nov 2008, at 09.59, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 73attendees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees
> 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

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

---

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
>
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ???
> Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for  
>> Is USA qualified for 2.3 of  
>> draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria as
> IETF Meeting Venue ?"
>>

---

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: 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: Marc Manthey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:56:24 +0100

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

excuse me why always 100 million ?

  is this the amount of people who voted for obama ?  ;)

wish i could  attend and meet  you all , great people.

may the force be with us

sincerly

macbroadcast

P.S. i am looking forward to hear such a great song " the day the  
routers died " again ;)

--
Development is when you know the answer, but not how to get there.
Applied research is when you know the question, but not the answer.
Pure research is when you don't know the question."
web : http://www.let.de
PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d  jabber :[email-masked]

--- advertising for german readers only:
http://www.verfassungsreferendum.de/index2.php

---

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

On 11/18/08 2:16 PM, "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> How would you solve the problem?
> 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: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:46:31 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]>; "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
...
> itself or is it how visas are processed?
...

I think the key concerns, in order of importance, are:
   (1) typical time required to process a visa request
   (2) likelihood that a visa will be granted to an IETF-er
   (3) cost of the visa application

(1) and (2) are the "biggies".  (3) gets lost in the
noise of meeting expenses for most destinations.

As someone who applies for (and gets, usually within
three days) visas at least once or twice a year to countries
other than the US, I don't think the requirement for a visa
is itself a problem.  The problem is the processing, and
the QoS *does* vary enormously, depending both source
and destination address.

Randy

---

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

---

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
> for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
> 
>  
> 
> 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] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> 
>     Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600:
> 
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>     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.
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

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.

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

---

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

At 07:04 p.m. 18/11/2008, Nicholas Weaver wrote:

>I would bet (but have no evidence) that the visa problem is almost
>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: "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: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:16:03 -0600

randy

---

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

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.

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: 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?

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:

[email-masked] wrote:

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: 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: 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.

---

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

---

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

Dave

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

> 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: 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:

>      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
>      for and obtaining authorization for attending an IETF meeting  
> anywhere in
>      the world.
>

---

From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:59:23 -0800

Let's also not forget that Mexico is also part of North America. The
percentage of IETF meetings targeted for North America could actually
theoretically be hosted in any of those three countries (USA, Canada,
Mexico) and still benefit from excellent worldwide air travel support.

From: James Seng [mailto:[email-masked]]

---

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

---

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

---

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.)

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/
-- 

   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: 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

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:20:32 -0800 (PST)

> controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers.

That is a one dimensional view of a multiple dimensional problem. The
object should be to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF
meetings. Ignoring the point made that contextual issues often change
between when a meeting is scheduled and when it actually happens,
predictable visa process has to share the stage with travel costs,
perception of personal safety, etc. Finding a venue with no visa issues
may also be a venue where average travel cost is doubled or more. I submit
that is not a solution. Finding a venue with no visa issues and no local
sponsor is not optimal. Etc.

I think it will be much more productive to focus on how to minimize the
visa process instability associated with travel to an already selected
venue then to try and select a venue whose current visa rules are very
tolerant.

Having seen this subject many times over the past few years, it is clear
to me that starting the process early to obtain a clear set of procedures
from the venue country and making sure all of the steps are known and in
place well in advance is the best way to mitigate the problem. I suspect
that travel industry professionals know the 3sigma processing time for
visa applications to other countries from their country. Use that
expertise to plan timelines for encouraging attendees to start the
process. Etc.

David Morris

---

From: Stephane H Maes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:48:18 -0800 (PST)

I was trying not to comment on this thread but frankly, I think it is important to offer a different perspective regarding the prioritization to consider. 

I am not judging adequacy of a particular location. I am sure other locations may pose problems. I do understand the frustration felt with US locations and I have seen this problem take place with other standard meetings than IETF (e.g. OMA in Chicago in August had many delegates (mostly from China but not only from China) unable to attend also for the same reasons and despite OMA having a much more formal company level membership based approach...). But reading the below, I have heard too often attendance #s and sponsorship considerations used to justify overlooking disenfranchisement, and it is simply not OK...

I think that if we aim at being an open standard organization, the highest priority must always be to not disenfranchise any IETF participants. While IETF offer safeguards and other mechanisms (e.g. email discussions) to reflect different views, being unable to attend meetings can be considered as severely impairing participation. o knowingly have locations that would prevent the participation of some should be treated as a major issue as it disenfranchises and it could be construed as a way to favor certain agendas. Other considerations like sponsorship, amount of attendees may matter but they are second order considerations that do not compare to the need to address disenfranchisement first... In fact a fairer view could be that if IETF can't address it for a specific meeting, may be IETF should simply not hold the meeting instead of justifying moving ahead because others can attend... If some can't attend, none should be given the advantage to attend and have their agenda pushed forward. That is imply not OK not matter where, why it happens etc...

I am sure that view may be controversial for some. That's not my intention and I am not that inclined to argue it further... But I wanted to make sure that if this discussion is continued, such a  point of view is also captured and documented...

I hope it help.

Thanks

Stephane 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Morris [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:21 PM
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 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.

That is a one dimensional view of a multiple dimensional problem. The object should be to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF meetings. Ignoring the point made that contextual issues often change between when a meeting is scheduled and when it actually happens, predictable visa process has to share the stage with travel costs, perception of personal safety, etc. Finding a venue with no visa issues may also be a venue where average travel cost is doubled or more. I submit that is not a solution. Finding a venue with no visa issues and no local sponsor is not optimal. Etc.

I think it will be much more productive to focus on how to minimize the visa process instability associated with travel to an already selected venue then to try and select a venue whose current visa rules are very tolerant.

Having seen this subject many times over the past few years, it is clear to me that starting the process early to obtain a clear set of procedures from the venue country and making sure all of the steps are known and in place well in advance is the best way to mitigate the problem. I suspect that travel industry professionals know the 3sigma processing time for visa applications to other countries from their country. Use that expertise to plan timelines for encouraging attendees to start the process. Etc.

David Morris

---

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: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:59:11 -0600

Stephane H Maes wrote:

> I think that if we aim at being an open standard organization, the
> highest priority must always be to not disenfranchise any IETF participants.

If you really believe that, it follows that meeting fees (and meeting
expenses in general) need to be drastically reduced.  Otherwise we are
disenfranchising those who cannot afford to attend with the current fee
structure.  It also follows that we need to find another model of
funding the Secretariat.

For those reasons I think it's hard to defend the notion that not
disenfranchising participants is the "highest priority".

We're supposed to be an engineering organization.  Engineering is
supposed to be an exercise in pragmatism.

Keith

---

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: 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.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:14:10 -0500

There is actually some positive news on the US Visa front :

http://www.unitedstatesvisas.gov/visanews/index.html

President Bush Announces Visa Waiver Program Expansion - VWP travel  
begins November 17

On October 17, President Bush announced the imminent expansion of the  
Visa Waiver Program (VWP) to include the Czech Republic, Estonia,  
Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Republic of Korea and the Slovak  
Republic. However, the United States must still complete certain  
internal steps required by statute before we can complete VWP  
expansion. Nationals of these seven countries continue to require  
visas to travel to the United States during that period. Nationals of  
the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Republic  
of Korea and the Slovak Republic will be able to travel without  
obtaining a visa for tourist and business travel of 90 days or less  
beginning November 17 provided they possess a biometric passport and  
register on-line through the Electronic System for Travel  
Authorization (ESTA). For the full text of the President's statement  
see the Press Release.

Regards
Marshall

On Nov 21, 2008, at 2:10 AM, Raj Yaralagadda wrote:

> 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.
>
> Cc: [email-masked]; Nicholas Weaver  
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> not required for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens.
>

---

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