Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:42:23 -0500

Hi,

On 3/31/17 9:18 AM, IAOC Chair wrote:
> The IAOC remains committed to soliciting input on future IETF meeting locations. With this mail, we are soliciting input on some potential IETF locations, including one where we have met before, but for which conditions may have changed.
>
> Specifically, we seek community input on reasons we could not have a successful meeting in any of the following cities, or of any limits to attendee accessibility or inclusiveness that should be considered:
>
> Ottawa
> San Francisco
> Austin, TX
> Barcelona
> Boston
> Busan
> Calgary
> Denver
> Helsinki
> Houston
> New Orleans
> Osaka
> Philadelphia
> Washington DC

I apologize for not following the form in the subject line, but in my
view, there is sufficient uncertainty about ability of people to gain
entry to the United States that we should not be planning meetings in
this country.  Over the last few weeks we have seen people with valid
visas turned away at the border or otherwise detained, sometimes for
days, without any cause being given.  We have people in our community
who could not get a visa in time for the Chicago meeting.  With the vote
by the European Parliament requiring Americans to have visas to enter
into EU countries, it is likely we will see a further degradation of the
situation, such as suspension of the VWP, thus bringing further
uncertainty to new and more common classes of individuals.

That translates into concerns over San Francisco, Austin, Boston,
Denver, Houston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Washington DC.  I would
prefer, therefore, as alternatives, Calgary, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal,
Quebec City, and Vancouver.

Eliot

---

From: Laurent Ciavaglia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:23:14 +0200

Hello,

Apologies also for not following the requested template, but my 
impression is that US cities are over-represented in the set of proposed 
cities.

Best regards, Laurent.

-- 

Laurent Ciavaglia

Nokia, Bell Labs

+33 160 402 636

route de Villejust - Nozay, France

linkedin.com/in/laurent.ciavaglia

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:42:10 -0500

Hi,

> On Mar 31, 2017, at 9:18 AM, IAOC Chair <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I have no issue with any of the cities above for future meeting sites, but I agree with the views that deferring future meetings in the US is prudent given the visa/entry issues.  We can have successful meetings in Canada or other places in North America.

Note, in picking venue locations in North America outside of the US, it important to pick locations that don’t require transit in the US.  In the list, I think Ottawa is fine, but not sure about Calgary.

Bob

> 
> Please send input to [email-masked]. It will help the review process if the Subject line had the name of the city first, Subject: <city>.
> 
> As a reminder, [email-masked] is a dropbox e-mail address: its archive is publicly visible, but subscription is not available.
> 
> Thanks,
> Leslie, for the IAOC.
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:55:33 -0500

>> Please send input to [email-masked].

so, i am curious.  do people
  o think their imput is more important than that of we small people,
  o can't read or follow instructions,
  o or some other thing i do not understand?

randy

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:09:07 -0500

>   o or some other thing i do not understand?

I believe this is something that is worthy of discussion within the
community and not just something that should be bottled up in a mailbox,
for two reasons: first, while I have a view, I am willing to change it
based on discussion (that would be the precise opposite of your first
bullet point), and second, we currently have a document opened in a
working group where discussion of this point might migrate back to
that.  And so, it falls under your latter bullet.  Perhaps in future you
might assume that to be the case (it is, if nothing else, more polite,
and reduces such meta discussions).

Eliot

---

From: tom p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:32:07 +0100

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 3:42 PM

On 3/31/17 9:18 AM, IAOC Chair wrote:
> The IAOC remains committed to soliciting input on future IETF meeting
locations. With this mail, we are soliciting input on some potential
IETF locations, including one where we have met before, but for which
conditions may have changed.
>
> Specifically, we seek community input on reasons we could not have a
successful meeting in any of the following cities, or of any limits to

<tp>

Knee-jerk reaction, was my thought on reading the IAOC post.

What I read in the press last January was that the USA wanted to
introduce a three month restriction while working out how best to keep
its citizens safe in the longer term, and that the initial restrictions
have already been relaxed and - I believe - subject to legal challenge.

I realise that IAOC is looking years ahead but do think that we should
at least wait until those three months are up.

In response to Eliot, as a citizen of Europe, I have had a harder time
getting into Canada to work than even I have into the USA so I place any
USA locality (except Hawaii - wrong side of the world) above any in
Canada.

Tom Petch

Eliot

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:59:49 -0500

> On Mar 31, 2017, at 09:42, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

I agree. I know some people who failed to get their visa in time. I booked last minute because I was waiting for the religious/racial ban to be suspended. I don't know when I will be refused entry for not handing out passwords or pins. I don't want to leave my laptop out of sight and I dont want to fly on planes with a zillion lithium-ion batteries in the cargo hold.

The situation has been in constant flux and is unlikely to stabilize soon, so we have no way of knowing the restrictions and limitations a year from now.

It is prudent to move the San Francisco meeting to outside the US.

Paul

---

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:32:18 -0700

> On Mar 31, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Probably a combination of (1) and (2) - but it’s a pity that the OP (original poster) didn’t set the “Reply-To:” header in their email.  That would have been a perfect use for it.

	Ross.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 00:58:35 +0100

On 31/03/2017 15:42, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Busan - looks expensive to get to
>> Calgary - also looks expensive to get to
>> Denver
>> Helsinki
>> Houston
>> New Orleans
>> Osaka
>> Philadelphia
>> Washington DC
>
To save everyone doing it, it would be good to show representative 
airfares and times from a major hub in Europe, East and West Coast, and Asia

I am sure cost and travel time will impact acceptability.

- Stewart