RE: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
I agree that this has been a significant issue, and that it is not appropriate to have a large number of meetings in a location where a significant number of potential attendees cannot get a visa to attend. For this reason I have been an advocate of having a disproportionate number of the North American meetings in Canada rather than the USA (to me the Vancouver and Montreal locations have been just as convenient as nearby US locations, and I assume that there must also be suitable facilities in Toronto and elsewhere). One thing that I wonder about is whether or not this will get better with the change of administrations in January. Thus I would be interested in hearing at the next two US IETFs (San Francisco in March 2009, and Anaheim in March 2010) whether people have had an easier time than they did at the current or past IETFs. Ross -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ??? Sent: 18 November 2008 10:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? yes, it's really a problem that IETF meeting organizers should seriously consider. 在您的来信中曾经提到: >From: "YAO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: >To: >Subject: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3 of draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? >Date:Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:24:41 +0800 > > > > according to IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04#section-2.3 > > which said " > > 2.3. Freedom of Participation > >Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could >be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for >all participants. > " > > My question is :" > > Is USA qualified for 2.3 of draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria > as IETF Meeting Venue ?" > > It seems that many IETFer are disallowed to enter USA for ietf meeting when > ietf is held in USA this time or other times > ___ > 73attendees mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year alone. Quoting "Ross Callon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I agree that this has been a significant issue, and that it is not appropriate to have a large number of meetings in a location where a significant number of potential attendees cannot get a visa to attend. For this reason I have been an advocate of having a disproportionate number of the North American meetings in Canada rather than the USA (to me the Vancouver and Montreal locations have been just as convenient as nearby US locations, and I assume that there must also be suitable facilities in Toronto and elsewhere). One thing that I wonder about is whether or not this will get better with the change of administrations in January. Thus I would be interested in hearing at the next two US IETFs (San Francisco in March 2009, and Anaheim in March 2010) whether people have had an easier time than they did at the current or past IETFs. Ross -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ??? Sent: 18 November 2008 10:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? yes, it's really a problem that IETF meeting organizers should seriously consider. 在您的来信中曾经提到: From: "YAO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: To: Subject: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3 of draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? Date:Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:24:41 +0800 according to IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04#section-2.3 which said " 2.3. Freedom of Participation Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for all participants. " My question is :" Is USA qualified for 2.3 of draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria as IETF Meeting Venue ?" It seems that many IETFer are disallowed to enter USA for ietf meeting when ietf is held in USA this time or other times ___ 73attendees mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees ___ 73attendees mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
On 18 nov 2008, at 09.59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year alone. Having 100 million people paying the conference fee for the next IETF in San Francisco, just so they could get a 1-entry conference visa (which is what India offers at no cost for the IGF in Hyderabad), would radically change the economical situation for the IETF. Patrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many > people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in > the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will > be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year > alone. thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united states. randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
If we could separate the humor from the serious issue here (assuming the 100 million was facetious), it would be interesting to know how many (if any) spurious applications for visas that an IETF meeting would generate. If the issue is that the US State Dept. can't sort through a huge number of irrelevant applications (i.e. those attempting to game the visa system) to find to the qualified attendees that is one problem. If the issue is that 3-4 months is not sufficient for a small number (<1000) of bona-fide applicants to get approved, that is a different problem. In either case, it would behoove all US participants to write their representatives to influence the State Department to modify procedures to facilitate the timely processing of qualified applicants (many of whom are repeat attendees at IETF). If international contributors cannot attend meetings in the US, more meetings will have to be outside the US, there could be significantly less US participation, and one more instance of short-sighted American protectionism resulting in a reduced US role in a vital international organization. That's as jingoistic as I get - it is definitely in US interest to fully participate in the global economy and facilitate international efforts like IETF. And I want the US to influence and benefit from the future of the Internet. Speaking purely as an individual, not representing my company or our customers. Might I suggest to the powers-that-be that they come up with proposed text for a "letter to my congressman" that would help solve this problem? I notice on the attendee list that there are a number of registered folks who did not pay (assume that means they could not come) and the majority of them are non-US. That indicates to me that this has become a serious impediment to some folks attending when meetings are in the US, and I for one would like to see some portion of meetings to remain in the US. Many of my colleagues have the opposite problem, being a difficulty with getting funding approval for international travel for conferences, and I would like to see more of them participating at IETF. On the other hand, Canada is a reasonable stop-gap to faciltate non-US participation without too much additional burden on US participants. Both Vancouver and Montreal were nice meeting locations, and Toronto should be as well. For those of us on the east coast of USA, Toronto and Montreal are closer that several large US cities, and Vancouver is quite convenient for folks on the west coast. Ed J. Randy Bush wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year alone. thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united states. randy ___ 73attendees mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Am 18.11.2008 um 16:59 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year alone. excuse me why always 100 million ? is this the amount of people who voted for obama ? ;) wish i could attend and meet you all , great people. may the force be with us sincerly macbroadcast P.S. i am looking forward to hear such a great song " the day the routers died " again ;) 在您的来信中曾经提到: -- Development is when you know the answer, but not how to get there. Applied research is when you know the question, but not the answer. Pure research is when you don't know the question." web : http://www.let.de PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- advertising for german readers only: http://www.verfassungsreferendum.de/index2.php ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
On 11/18/08 2:16 PM, "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> How would you solve the problem? > hold the meetings in non-terrorist countries. i.e. not the united states. I don't know what that means. Canada, for example, is a peacekeeper nation that requires visas for entry from countries from which there are many IETF participants (India, China). Is the issue the visa requirement itself or is it how visas are processed? Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Randy Bush wrote: thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united states. Folks who have read ietf mailing lists for awhile might have noticed that it's distinctive when John Klensin and I agree and, therefore, probably worth taking as significant. The joke is old enough to have gotten stale, but it's still true. However, that's nothing compared with the number of times I agree with Randy. This is one of them. Surely there is enough choice in venue to permit a global organization like the IETF to select ones that put some effort into being friendly about participation by people from a wider set of countries? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Two points: 1) As a U.S. citizen, I apologize for the statement made on this thread by [EMAIL PROTECTED] I quietly suggest to all that it be ignored. I am he misspoke -- perhaps the laptop slipped in his lap at IETF73. 2) Again as a U.S. citizen, I will contact the IETF Chair and ISOC management to volunteer to assist in resolving the issue of IETF meeting attendance. There is substantially less of a problem here than most realize. The real issue is certainty -- the IETF needs to obtain clear instructions, obtain the cooperation of U.S. government officials so that people from any country can know well in advance AND WITH CERTAINTY the process of applying for and obtaining authorization for attending an IETF meeting anywhere in the world. If this cannot be accomplished, then the IETF should not meet in that country. Gene Gaines Sterling, Virginia USA On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Melinda Shore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/18/08 2:16 PM, "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> How would you solve the problem? > > hold the meetings in non-terrorist countries. i.e. not the united > states. > > I don't know what that means. Canada, for example, is a peacekeeper > nation that requires visas for entry from countries from which there are > many IETF participants (India, China). Is the issue the visa requirement > itself or is it how visas are processed? > > Melinda > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
> How would you solve the problem? hold the meetings in non-terrorist countries. i.e. not the united states. randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote: Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year alone. thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united states. How would you solve the problem? Let 100 million people in on false pretenses? I'm not going to defend the behavior of the US government, but I want you to admit that US immigration has a difficult problem. Slinging labels around doesn't help. Remember, the IETF is NOT special. There are tens of thousands of conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal. If the US gave effectively carte blanch to conference attendees, you would have no immigration controls, period, as this would be a big enough loophole to fly an A380 through. The Visa issue in the US is serious, but how many people are really affected by this? We need hard data, because the notion of simply "not holding IETF meetings in a terrorist country" is not effective. And if you want to do Visa issues as a criteria, you can strongly argue that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not required for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Melinda Shore wrote: > Is the issue the visa requirement itself or is it how visas are > processed? from my pov, the latter. is it easy for folk from all countries to get to the ietf meetings? for example, that chinese have problems getting to this meeting is a major and embarrassing disaster. randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many > > people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in > > the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will > > be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year > > alone. > > thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the > us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united > states. How would you solve the problem? Let 100 million people in on false pretenses? I'm not going to defend the behavior of the US government, but I want you to admit that US immigration has a difficult problem. Slinging labels around doesn't help. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Disclaimer: What I say here are my words and don't represent the views of my employer. >From what I see here the issues are mostly experienced by Chinese citizens. Most of the other countries have reciprocal visa agreements with the US. China however doesn't have that agreement with Ireland, Sweden, Japan, or the US. Were there similar problems with gaining entrance into Ireland? Will there be similar issues with gaining entrance into Sweden or Japan? Dave On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Nicholas Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote: > > Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600: >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year alone. >>> >>> thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the >>> us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united >>> states. >>> >> >> How would you solve the problem? Let 100 million people in on false >> pretenses? I'm not going to defend the behavior of the US government, >> but I want you to admit that US immigration has a difficult problem. >> Slinging labels around doesn't help. >> > > Remember, the IETF is NOT special. There are tens of thousands of > conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal. If the > US gave effectively carte blanch to conference attendees, you would have no > immigration controls, period, as this would be a big enough loophole to fly > an A380 through. > > The Visa issue in the US is serious, but how many people are really > affected by this? > > We need hard data, because the notion of simply "not holding IETF meetings > in a terrorist country" is not effective. > > And if you want to do Visa issues as a criteria, you can strongly argue > that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not required > for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens. > > > ___ > 73attendees mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
The folks to contact are the IAOC. The IETF Chair is on the IAOC. As to visa issues, as Randy opines, the issue tends to be visa processing. Depending on country pair, there are interesting issues around the globe. The US Embassies in China and Russia seem to not have IETF attendance on their list of important events for the Chinese or Russians to attend - or anything else that happens in the US. Last year, when I was asked to speak at RANS and specifically speak on a panel chaired by the Colonel-General that runs Department K (cybercrime) of the Russian police, the FSB decided that they needed to look at my visa application, and calmly told me that the announcement would come on the day that I was to speak. We could discuss, as someone else mentioned in this thread, the gymnastics necessary to enter China last summer; I visited in June, August, and October, and went through some serious dance steps each time. We could discuss the various countries in the middle east, or what folks in Asia often call "western asia"; 'nuff said. And then there is China vs Taiwan, regardless of how you parse the Taiwan Straits issue. I would be hesitant to drag the IETF into world politics; the law of Unintended Consequences was invented to describe politics, I think. On Nov 18, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Gene Gaines wrote: Two points: 1) As a U.S. citizen, I apologize for the statement made on this thread by [EMAIL PROTECTED] I quietly suggest to all that it be ignored. I am he misspoke -- perhaps the laptop slipped in his lap at IETF73. 2) Again as a U.S. citizen, I will contact the IETF Chair and ISOC management to volunteer to assist in resolving the issue of IETF meeting attendance. There is substantially less of a problem here than most realize. The real issue is certainty -- the IETF needs to obtain clear instructions, obtain the cooperation of U.S. government officials so that people from any country can know well in advance AND WITH CERTAINTY the process of applying for and obtaining authorization for attending an IETF meeting anywhere in the world. If this cannot be accomplished, then the IETF should not meet in that country. Gene Gaines Sterling, Virginia USA On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Melinda Shore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11/18/08 2:16 PM, "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> How would you solve the problem? > hold the meetings in non-terrorist countries. i.e. not the united states. I don't know what that means. Canada, for example, is a peacekeeper nation that requires visas for entry from countries from which there are many IETF participants (India, China). Is the issue the visa requirement itself or is it how visas are processed? Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Fred Baker wrote: I would be hesitant to drag the IETF into world politics; the law of Unintended Consequences was invented to describe politics, I think. It's not a matter of being dragged into politics. (Or at least, it shouldn't be.) It's essentially an engineering task of working to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF meetings, by looking for venues where visa processing is the least problematic. That does not mean "no visas" or anything else simplistic, except that border controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Dave, The IAOC is aware of the situation with respect to visas for visitors from mainland China at this particular IETF meeting. Generally speaking, applicants are NOT refused visas, they just don't get a reply (or a visa) in time and they may never get a reply at all. We are not sure what happened this time, but we believe the "no reply" rate was much higher than normal and we will be working with various parties to try to make this easier in the future. It's worth noting that the visa situation for most countries in the world is by no means "static" so it's not just as simple as picking a list of venues with the most favorable visa situation, as this may have changed by the time we get round to having the meeting --- which, as you know, we try to schedule as far in advance as possible, in the 1 - 2 year range. As for being "dragged into politics," this is unfortunately not easy to avoid either. I probably don't need to mention the three^H^H^H^H^Hone China issue for example. Ole (IAOC Meetings subcommittee chair) Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > It's not a matter of being dragged into politics. (Or at least, it shouldn't > be.) > > It's essentially an engineering task of working to maximize the ability of > people to attend IETF meetings, by looking for venues where visa processing is > the least problematic. > > That does not mean "no visas" or anything else simplistic, except that border > controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers. > > d/ > -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Dave CROCKER wrote: > It's not a matter of being dragged into politics. (Or at least, it shouldn't > be.) > > It's essentially an engineering task of working to maximize the ability of > people to attend IETF meetings, by looking for venues where visa processing is > the least problematic. > > That does not mean "no visas" or anything else simplistic, except that border > controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers. That is a one dimensional view of a multiple dimensional problem. The object should be to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF meetings. Ignoring the point made that contextual issues often change between when a meeting is scheduled and when it actually happens, predictable visa process has to share the stage with travel costs, perception of personal safety, etc. Finding a venue with no visa issues may also be a venue where average travel cost is doubled or more. I submit that is not a solution. Finding a venue with no visa issues and no local sponsor is not optimal. Etc. I think it will be much more productive to focus on how to minimize the visa process instability associated with travel to an already selected venue then to try and select a venue whose current visa rules are very tolerant. Having seen this subject many times over the past few years, it is clear to me that starting the process early to obtain a clear set of procedures from the venue country and making sure all of the steps are known and in place well in advance is the best way to mitigate the problem. I suspect that travel industry professionals know the 3sigma processing time for visa applications to other countries from their country. Use that expertise to plan timelines for encouraging attendees to start the process. Etc. David Morris ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
I was trying not to comment on this thread but frankly, I think it is important to offer a different perspective regarding the prioritization to consider. I am not judging adequacy of a particular location. I am sure other locations may pose problems. I do understand the frustration felt with US locations and I have seen this problem take place with other standard meetings than IETF (e.g. OMA in Chicago in August had many delegates (mostly from China but not only from China) unable to attend also for the same reasons and despite OMA having a much more formal company level membership based approach...). But reading the below, I have heard too often attendance #s and sponsorship considerations used to justify overlooking disenfranchisement, and it is simply not OK... I think that if we aim at being an open standard organization, the highest priority must always be to not disenfranchise any IETF participants. While IETF offer safeguards and other mechanisms (e.g. email discussions) to reflect different views, being unable to attend meetings can be considered as severely impairing participation. o knowingly have locations that would prevent the participation of some should be treated as a major issue as it disenfranchises and it could be construed as a way to favor certain agendas. Other considerations like sponsorship, amount of attendees may matter but they are second order considerations that do not compare to the need to address disenfranchisement first... In fact a fairer view could be that if IETF can't address it for a specific meeting, may be IETF should simply not hold the meeting instead of justifying moving ahead because others can attend... If some can't attend, none should be given the advantage to attend and have their agenda pushed forward. That is imply not OK not matter where, why it happens etc... I am sure that view may be controversial for some. That's not my intention and I am not that inclined to argue it further... But I wanted to make sure that if this discussion is continued, such a point of view is also captured and documented... I hope it help. Thanks Stephane -Original Message- From: David Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:21 PM Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Dave CROCKER wrote: > It's not a matter of being dragged into politics. (Or at least, it > shouldn't be.) > > It's essentially an engineering task of working to maximize the > ability of people to attend IETF meetings, by looking for venues where > visa processing is the least problematic. > > That does not mean "no visas" or anything else simplistic, except that > border controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers. That is a one dimensional view of a multiple dimensional problem. The object should be to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF meetings. Ignoring the point made that contextual issues often change between when a meeting is scheduled and when it actually happens, predictable visa process has to share the stage with travel costs, perception of personal safety, etc. Finding a venue with no visa issues may also be a venue where average travel cost is doubled or more. I submit that is not a solution. Finding a venue with no visa issues and no local sponsor is not optimal. Etc. I think it will be much more productive to focus on how to minimize the visa process instability associated with travel to an already selected venue then to try and select a venue whose current visa rules are very tolerant. Having seen this subject many times over the past few years, it is clear to me that starting the process early to obtain a clear set of procedures from the venue country and making sure all of the steps are known and in place well in advance is the best way to mitigate the problem. I suspect that travel industry professionals know the 3sigma processing time for visa applications to other countries from their country. Use that expertise to plan timelines for encouraging attendees to start the process. Etc. David Morris ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Ole Jacobsen wrote: speaking, applicants are NOT refused visas, they just don't get a reply (or a visa) in time and they may never get a reply at all. The key point is that there was a pattern of failure to get a visa. To me, the remaining details are purely secondary. We are not sure what happened this time, but we believe the "no reply" rate was much higher than normal and we will be working with various parties to try to make this easier in the future. My concern is with hearing about a pattern of problems over the last several years, for people from a range of countries. The issue is not specific to this meeting or a single country. Added to this, of course, is that in the last few years, the U.S. has lost its Most Favored Nation status as a travel destination No venue will be perfect, but among the complex mix of factors affecting choice of IETF meeting sites, travel hassles that include government bureaucracy and social (dis)favor ought to be included, to the extent that we have evidence they affect attendance. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Stephane H Maes wrote: > I think that if we aim at being an open standard organization, the > highest priority must always be to not disenfranchise any IETF participants. If you really believe that, it follows that meeting fees (and meeting expenses in general) need to be drastically reduced. Otherwise we are disenfranchising those who cannot afford to attend with the current fee structure. It also follows that we need to find another model of funding the Secretariat. For those reasons I think it's hard to defend the notion that not disenfranchising participants is the "highest priority". We're supposed to be an engineering organization. Engineering is supposed to be an exercise in pragmatism. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
- Original Message - From: "Ole Jacobsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? > > Dave, > > The IAOC is aware of the situation with respect to visas for visitors > from mainland China at this particular IETF meeting. Generally > speaking, applicants are NOT refused visas, they just don't get a > reply (or a visa) in time and they may never get a reply at all. You are right. We can not get a reply at all. Most persons applied the visa in Sep.(almost 2 months in advance of the ietf meeting ). As a rule of Visa office, we can not check the status from the visa office during the period of our application. The only answer they will say is "just wait, when the visa is available, you will get a notice. " Normally, when the ietf meeting begins, sometimes we will get a call from visa office, which said "sorry since the meeting has already began, we can not issue the visa to you this time. pls apply it next time." > > We are not sure what happened this time, but we believe the "no reply" > rate was much higher than normal and we will be working with various > parties to try to make this easier in the future. thanks. > > It's worth noting that the visa situation for most countries in the > world is by no means "static" so it's not just as simple as picking > a list of venues with the most favorable visa situation, as this may > have changed by the time we get round to having the meeting --- which, > as you know, we try to schedule as far in advance as possible, in > the 1 - 2 year range. > > As for being "dragged into politics," this is unfortunately not easy > to avoid either. I probably don't need to mention the three^H^H^H^H^Hone > China issue for example. > > Ole (IAOC Meetings subcommittee chair) > > Ole J. Jacobsen > Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal > Cisco Systems > Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj > > > On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> >> It's not a matter of being dragged into politics. (Or at least, it shouldn't >> be.) >> >> It's essentially an engineering task of working to maximize the ability of >> people to attend IETF meetings, by looking for venues where visa processing >> is >> the least problematic. >> >> That does not mean "no visas" or anything else simplistic, except that border >> controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers. >> >> d/ >> -- > ___ > 73attendees mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Hi Hold the meeting In Singapore Most of the Countries do not need Visa, Visa on Arrival, 15 Days to 3 months for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens will get on Arrival. I'm Singaporean i don't need visa to travel to most of the places. - Sincerely Raj T: +65 8229 0283 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Nicholas Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nicholas Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:40:58 AM Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote: > Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many >>> people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in >>> the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will >>> be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year >>> alone. >> >> thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the >> us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united >> states. > > How would you solve the problem? Let 100 million people in on false > pretenses? I'm not going to defend the behavior of the US government, > but I want you to admit that US immigration has a difficult problem. > Slinging labels around doesn't help. Remember, the IETF is NOT special. There are tens of thousands of conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal. If the US gave effectively carte blanch to conference attendees, you would have no immigration controls, period, as this would be a big enough loophole to fly an A380 through. The Visa issue in the US is serious, but how many people are really affected by this? We need hard data, because the notion of simply "not holding IETF meetings in a terrorist country" is not effective. And if you want to do Visa issues as a criteria, you can strongly argue that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not required for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
There is actually some positive news on the US Visa front : http://www.unitedstatesvisas.gov/visanews/index.html President Bush Announces Visa Waiver Program Expansion - VWP travel begins November 17 On October 17, President Bush announced the imminent expansion of the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) to include the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Republic of Korea and the Slovak Republic. However, the United States must still complete certain internal steps required by statute before we can complete VWP expansion. Nationals of these seven countries continue to require visas to travel to the United States during that period. Nationals of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Republic of Korea and the Slovak Republic will be able to travel without obtaining a visa for tourist and business travel of 90 days or less beginning November 17 provided they possess a biometric passport and register on-line through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). For the full text of the President's statement see the Press Release. Regards Marshall On Nov 21, 2008, at 2:10 AM, Raj Yaralagadda wrote: Hi Hold the meeting In Singapore Most of the Countries do not need Visa, Visa on Arrival, 15 Days to 3 months for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens will get on Arrival. I'm Singaporean i don't need visa to travel to most of the places. - Sincerely Raj T: +65 8229 0283 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Nicholas Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nicholas Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:40:58 AM Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet- ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote: > Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many >>> people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in >>> the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will >>> be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year >>> alone. >> >> thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the >> us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united >> states. > > How would you solve the problem? Let 100 million people in on false > pretenses? I'm not going to defend the behavior of the US government, > but I want you to admit that US immigration has a difficult problem. > Slinging labels around doesn't help. Remember, the IETF is NOT special. There are tens of thousands of conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal. If the US gave effectively carte blanch to conference attendees, you would have no immigration controls, period, as this would be a big enough loophole to fly an A380 through. The Visa issue in the US is serious, but how many people are really affected by this? We need hard data, because the notion of simply "not holding IETF meetings in a terrorist country" is not effective. And if you want to do Visa issues as a criteria, you can strongly argue that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not required for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Let us ask a different question In what ways can the ietf act to maximize the information available to the embassy in question to enable them to determine that the application comes from an active ietf participant? A letter of invitation to a conference is likely to carry less information than a statement that person x has been an active wg participant for five years yadda yadda yadda Sent from my iPhone 3G On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:02 PM, Dave CROCKER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ole Jacobsen wrote: speaking, applicants are NOT refused visas, they just don't get a reply (or a visa) in time and they may never get a reply at all. The key point is that there was a pattern of failure to get a visa. To me, the remaining details are purely secondary. We are not sure what happened this time, but we believe the "no reply" rate was much higher than normal and we will be working with various parties to try to make this easier in the future. My concern is with hearing about a pattern of problems over the last several years, for people from a range of countries. The issue is not specific to this meeting or a single country. Added to this, of course, is that in the last few years, the U.S. has lost its Most Favored Nation status as a travel destination No venue will be perfect, but among the complex mix of factors affecting choice of IETF meeting sites, travel hassles that include government bureaucracy and social (dis)favor ought to be included, to the extent that we have evidence they affect attendance. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ 73attendees mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
