Hi, On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:27:45AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote: > I've never been hassled for any of the things I've brought in - medicine, > electronics, and even gum. I haven't visited as often as either of you, I think, but I also found the entry to be mostly painless. At the same time, however, I think we need to be quite careful in what we are saying. We are encroaching again on the same controversy that caused difficulty when the site was announced. There are two ways to evaluate risk in respect of a jurisdiction's rules. One is to take the literal text of the rules and assume that those rules are in effect. The other is to attend to what mostly happens in the jurisdiction under normal circumstances, and treat that as the actual, practical risk in the jurisdiction. The second approach has the natural appeal that it is pragmatic, and I am prepared to believe that most of the people involved in this sort of travel make that kind of judgement all the time. But the problem with it for an organization like ours that is travelling _en masse_ to a location is that the rules remain in place. They are therefore available to be imposed on any individual if circumstances emerge such that authorities would like to do that. That Singaporeans are themselves apparently mostly disinclined to enforce many of the official rules capriciously is certainly good news (I can think of one country we travelled to in the recent past where that appears not to be the case). Circumstances change in countries, sometimes in surprising ways. Therefore, IETF participants who are going to attend IETF 100 should be aware that the rules are strict and published. Each traveller should weigh the reports of non-enforcement against the risk that the rule could be enforced in one's own case. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx