Subject: [Mtgvenue] Visa problems to Thailand -- tourism vs ED

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2018 14:52:57 -0400

0) Lots of references to IASA in both draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-07
   and draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-16 reference
   IASA and IAOC.  Is there an AUTH48 plan to change these to LLC?

1) I'm asking because maybe we need an additional AUTH48 change detailing
   what "visa requirements" means in section 3.2:

Section 3.2 includes:

      Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are likely
      to be such that an overwhelming majority of participants who wish
      to do so can attend.  The term "travel barriers" is to be read
      broadly by the IASA in the context of whether a successful
      meeting can be had.

And we have a long thread this month about whether a VISA is required,
if a tourism VISA is acceptable, or whether one of the various business
visa's might be appropriate.  Along with opinions from a variety of
consolulates in various countries who clearly do not know what kind of VISA
to issue.

At this point, I think that there is a great deal of FUD in the air.
It's tangible uncertainty, not just marketing that is occuring here.

It started with a request for the IAOC to please collect the list of official
statements in one place so that we don't have to do all the leg work (and the
uncertainty that we have the wrong info!)
The response was that the IAOC can not provide specific advice for any
specific travellers is of course reasonable, but completely missed the
point.  That the IAOC can't manage to point to a specific visa requirement is
of great concern.  That we do not seem to be on the list of conferences
seems to cause a great deal if uncertainty.
  see:  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XWeYQJjsZRVNDHcaVAEdpUW4Ri8

I'd like to see a paragraph basically saying that a mtgvenue criteria
is the ability to get a clear statement as to what the visa requirements
*are* for a specific meeting place.
  {I'd like to say that a reference to a government web site would be a great
  thing, ideally hosted in a clear "gc.cctld" place, but it appears that Thai
  government web sites often use .com. (There is an entire rathole of
  web-site reputation standardization that we could avoid here... maybe we
  can make it a W3C problem)}

Please note that I am not asking for the VISA process to be predictable,
repeatable, or rational.  While many of us would like the legal codes to
be subject to standardized interpretation, this is clearly not within
our ability to affect.  That doesn't mean that we can't ask for a stable
ISO9001-type reference.  Even if the documented process involves
rolling die or consultation of the pineal gland.

I rather feel like this is micromanaging the IAOC mtgvenue cmte by the
community.

Maybe this need to do this is part of the frustration that some have with the
IAOC.  Two months ago, I would not have thought that we needed to write
this down, that it would be obvious that a request to place collect the
information in one place would be responded to with: "yes, of course, sorry
that we didn't point to official-site-X in the announcement"

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:34:26 +1200

>    IASA and IAOC.  Is there an AUTH48 plan to change these to LLC?

As far as I know, "IASA" will still be a valid acronym after the
transition to the LLC. But "IAOC" will need to be fixed. Personally
I'm happy to consider that to be an editorial fix.

>       broadly by the IASA in the context of whether a successful

That "likely" already makes it clear that there's a judgment call involved.

<snip>
 
> *are* for a specific meeting place.

That seems reasonable. But why doesn't it apply to *all* "travel barriers"?
(We had some discussion pre-Singapore about whether it was OK to arrive
carrying prescribed medication.)

    Brian

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2018 18:05:04 -0400

Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> 1) I'm asking because maybe we need an additional AUTH48 change
    >> detailing what "visa requirements" means in section 3.2:
    >>
    >> Section 3.2 includes:
    >>
    >> Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are likely to
    >> be such that an overwhelming majority of participants who wish to do
    >> so can attend.  The term "travel barriers" is to be read broadly by
    >> the IASA in the context of whether a successful meeting can be had.

    >> is the ability to get a clear statement as to what the visa
    >> requirements *are* for a specific meeting place.

    > That seems reasonable. But why doesn't it apply to *all* "travel
    > barriers"?  (We had some discussion pre-Singapore about whether it was
    > OK to arrive carrying prescribed medication.)

Yes, I certainly agree.

{I also want to note that the November meeting is nomcom-interview meeting,
and if it's continuously the most challenging meeting to attend, then we are
in essence creating a self-fulfilling situation.  We will have little
management diversity at the IETF if the people who can not attend are always
from the geographies...  }

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:22:37 -0700

Gents,

We already have words in there that very much would address the concerns
you are raising:

>    o  Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are likely
>       broadly by the IASA in the context of whether a successful meeting
>       can be had.

We specifically added that last sentence to make clear to the IASA and
successors that ANYTHING that poses a barrier should be considered. 
That includes confusion about the visa process, if it turns out to have
been insurmountable to more than a handful of people.

Also,we are well past the approval stage, and the editor will make no
substantial changes without firm direction from the AD.  Because the
IAOC is highly sensitive to this document I will take a very
conservative view even toward editorial changes, as I have in the past.

Eliot

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:55:53 -0700

> On Sep 9, 2018, at 1:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:

I would agree. It's a change of acronym, from an editorial perspective.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that there is a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven is an interesting comment on projected traffic volume...

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:58:17 -0700

On Sep 9, 2018, at 3:05 PM, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I also want to note that the November meeting is nomcom-interview meeting, and if it's continuously the most challenging meeting to attend, then we are in essence creating a self-fulfilling situation.  We will have little management diversity at the IETF if the people who can not attend are always from the geographies...

We also have that issue with the mid-year meeting, which often happens in Europe when people in Europe are somewhere else. It's not a "nomcom" problem, but it is a perennial problem.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:19:55 -0700

> I would agree. It's a change of acronym, from an editorial perspective.

The AD has asked for a substitution along the above lines.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 08:26:53 +1200

> conservative view even toward editorial changes, as I have in the past.

Well understood. I wouldn't go to the barriers on this one, because
the existing text already obliges IASA to look at this issue.

    Brian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:38:39 -0500

To chime in late ... and after noting that we're not talking about a
document change on this ...

> carrying prescribed medication.)

At the time I was making arrangements for Singapore, I happened to be on
one medication that was "must have permission to arrive carrying", and one
that was "leave this at home".

If I remember correctly, we were treated to a few people (like me) posting
"huh?", and a few people saying "no one looked at MY meds when I landed",
and a few people posting pointers to a relatively official-looking
medications list, that I could compare all of my meds against.

So, that last part was the difference for me - that conversation converged
at something like

   - there are rules
   - you aren't likely to be checked
   - if you care about being checked, here's where to check your meds list,
   and here's what to do if one or more of your meds is on that list.

ISTM that I'm hearing most of the current frustration because our shared
understanding of the situation in Bangkok isn't converging, the way
Singapore converged. It seems like there' a post about a new embassy with a
different story than the previous embassy about twice a week, and no
obvious signs of that changing anytime before December.

FWTW, of course.

Spencer