Subject: [Ietf-community-india] Fw: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

From: Abhijan Bhattacharyya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:56:33 +0530

Interesting conversation..... :-)
Regards
Abhijan Bhattacharyya
Associate Consultant
Scientist, Innovation Lab, Kolkata, India
Tata Consultancy Services
Mailto: [email-masked]
Website: http://www.tcs.com
____________________________________________
Experience certainty.   IT Services
                        Business Solutions
                        Consulting
____________________________________________

----- Forwarded by Abhijan Bhattacharyya/KOL/TCS on 01/31/2017 11:56 AM 
-----

From:   "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <[email-masked]>
To:     James Seng <[email-masked]>
Cc:     "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "Thompson, 
Jeff" <[email-masked]>, Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>, 
"Ietf@Ietf. Org" <[email-masked]>
Date:   01/31/2017 01:28 AM
Subject:        Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for 
IETF 100
Sent by:        "Recentattendees" <[email-masked]>

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:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:08 PM
To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
Cc: Thompson, Jeff; Dan Harkins; [email-masked]; 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 <[email-masked]> 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) <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thompson, Jeff
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:55 AM
> To: Dan Harkins
> Cc: [email-masked]; 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"
> <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]>
> 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
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees

-- 
-James Seng

-- 
-James Seng_______________________________________________
Recentattendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees

=====-----=====-----=====
Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
message and/or attachments to it may contain 
confidential or privileged information. If you are 
not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, 
review, distribution, printing or copying of the 
information contained in this e-mail message 
and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If 
you have received this communication in error, 
please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and 
immediately and permanently delete the message 
and any attachments. Thank you