On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Mani, Mehdi <Mehdi.Mani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear all, > > As an european holding a french passport with my origin coming from Iran i > cannot travel to US with this executive order of Mr Trump even if i work for > an American company. > > So i beleive as well that meeting venues should not be any more in US with > such à discriminatory law. > I am concerned on the fact that some people are taking this discussion to anti-America meeting sites, especially as someone living in the US. I remind people that just a few years ago, all the meetings were being held in the US. US is the home ship for IETF. Yes, I sympatize with those having issues in entering and hope that somehow those restrictions will go away. Actually I propose meeting more often in the US, that will be good for everybody. Regards, Behcet > Regards > Mehdi > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 30 Jan 2017, at 20:58, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <MHammer@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > [2] 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_recentattendees&d=DwICAg&c=pqcuzKEN_84c78MOSc5_fw&r=Epy6n6lZ-_AtB6Unawan0zjIdEv95r_5HxuTpDOXS88&m=YG0d5xRrune4H9v4a848Pf_VWTMitYGP8HqzQqCQN5E&s=IbrWLu7DYbdtAsLRNOqj9FIMn8BuytPgAY3QQ-34hu4&e=