Hi, >Of course, we don’t have the crystal ball, but in the case of actual US >situation, I think the chances were so high, that we made a mistake going >to Chicago. In my opinion, the only ones who knew this would happen were Michael Moore and Lisa Simpson… Regards, Christer >-----Mensaje original----- >De: Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@xxxxxxxxx> >Responder a: <naeem.khademi@xxxxxxxxx> >Fecha: martes, 31 de enero de 2017, 10:44 >Para: <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >CC: "recentattendees@xxxxxxxx" <recentattendees@xxxxxxxx>, "Ietf@Ietf. >Org" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF >100 > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:58 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ ><jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If we include such a cancellation clause, we should also have an >insurance contract to cover the non-refundable cost such as flights and >hotels that some participants book 1 year in advance in order to have it >cheaper. > > > > The next IETF in the US after Chicago, would be in July 2018 in SF. I >don't think it's even possible to buy a flight ticket for that time as of >now (most airlines wouldn't do such pre-sale). So, it's pretty much >possible to relocate that meeting elsewhere with causing no loss to >anyone's already-made plans. > > Regards, > Naeem > > > > Regards, > Jordi > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Recentattendees <recentattendees-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de >"MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@xxxxxx> > Responder a: <MHammer@xxxxxx> > Fecha: lunes, 30 de enero de 2017, 20:57 > Para: James Seng <james.seng@xxxxxxxxx> > CC: "recentattendees@xxxxxxxx" <recentattendees@xxxxxxxx>, "Thompson, >Jeff" <jefft0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Harkins <dharkins@xxxxxxxxxx>, >"Ietf@Ietf. Org" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for >IETF 100 > > > James, > > Seeing as the email you chose to quote was a response to my email >from May 27th, 2016, I’m left trying to decide if you were responding >specifically > to my comments or that earlier thread in general. I still stand >by my statements even if it means that the ultimate IETF decision is not >to hold meetings in the USA I think your prognostication unfortunately >was correct. I was not being rhetorical in my > earlier comments We, as participants engaged in technical >efforts across national boundaries need to figure out pragmatic ways of >ensuring our efforts and activities continue to function despite >decisions by specific localities. > > Looking forward, it might be reasonable for IETF to include a >cancellation clause based on the government of the host country engaging >in an act like the ban > (after the contract has been signed.) > > Mike > > From: James Seng [mailto:james.seng@xxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:08 PM > To: MH Michael Hammer (5304) > Cc: Thompson, Jeff; Dan Harkins; recentattendees@xxxxxxxx; >Ietf@Ietf. Org > Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go >for IETF 100 > > > > I rescind my previous comment that the scenario I painted is >rhetorical. > > > > None of our US fellow IETFers here have any moral authority to >talk about "inclusive" ever again. > > > > -James Seng > > > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:44 AM, James Seng ><james.seng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Since after 9-11, things have change a lot for United States[1]. > > > > Especially for TSA, I remember going to SFO the first time after >9-11, it took me 2 hours just to clear the security and I missed my >flight. I also remember pre 9-11, I could get into US for > less than 15-20mins. > > > > Now, for my American friends who pay in the price in time, let me >tell you what we non-American citizen has to do to get into US after >9-11. We have been tagged, photographed, fingerprinted, > all our 10 fingers every time we have to enter US. We have been >systematically profiled, often by racial or nationality, and some of us >have to go through enhanced body-to-body search everytime we cross >security. I was put in a "Muslim" basket been a Malaysian > for a while so ... And we have to do it with a smile because if >any of us pull of a stunt like Aaron Tobey[2], we could be denied our >entry and possibility forever. > > > > My wife complains that the over the last decade I have put on a >lot of weight and asked me to check my photos. Unfortunately, I don't >like selfie nor do I like to take pictures of myself. But > I told her not to worry as TSA has a complete profile of me >becoming fat over the years. > > > > Today, we all saw a US President may-to-be calling up to forbid >Muslim to enter US, to build walls to prevent people from the south, who >threaten to get even tougher to foreigners. > > > > So by the same principle that Jeff is advocate, that we hold IETF >meeting where "law declares some people less valid", I prognosticate we >may no longer able to hold our meetings in US. > > > > [1] > > > >http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/united-states-after-911-6-things-have-changed >-2001-2093156 ><http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/united-states-after-911-6-things-have-change >d-2001-2093156> > > > > > [2] > http://dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/how-to-fight-the-tsa ><http://dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/how-to-fight-the-tsa> > > > > ps: This is rhetorical to put any doubt in rest. I love US even >though getting there is still a pain for me. > > > > -James Seng > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:34 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) ><MHammer@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of >Thompson, Jeff > > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:55 AM > > To: Dan Harkins > > Cc: recentattendees@xxxxxxxx; Ietf@Ietf. Org > > Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go >for IETF > > 100 > > > > On 2016/5/26, 21:11:51, "Recentattendees on behalf of Dan >Harkins" > > <recentattendees-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of > dharkins@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > I would also like to suggest that the ability of certain >members to > > >bring their family on a vacation that coincides with an IETF >should not > > >be a governing factor in venue selection. Many people like to >launder a > > >business trip into a family vacation (myself > > >included!) but that's not why the IETF exists and it should >have no > > >bearing on where we meet. > > > > So then, the IETF policy would read ³The IETF may hold meetings >in countries > > where the law declares some people less valid. If you are such >a person, then > > the IETF recommends that to avoid trouble with the law you >should hide who > > you are, including not bringing your family.² > > > > Is this the organization that the IETF is going to be? > > > > - Jeff > > > > Jeff, > > Is there any country in the world that meets the standard your >comment implies should be the IETF policy? Is this a case of perfection >being the enemy of good? Perhaps it is a case of perfection being the >enemy of reality. I don't know what IETF policy should > be but I do recognize that there are very real limitations that >constrain choices. I'll also point out that the choices made will >constrain the choices of participants. I'm not advocating for any >particular choice by the IETF with regard to meeting locations. > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Recentattendees mailing list > Recentattendees@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -James Seng > > > > > > > > > > -- > -James Seng > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Recentattendees mailing list > Recentattendees@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees > > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged >or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the >individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware >that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this >information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >********************************************** >IPv4 is over >Are you ready for the new Internet ? >http://www.consulintel.es >The IPv6 Company > >This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or >confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the >individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware >that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this >information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > >