Re: Travel Bans and IETF 127

[Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen=40me.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Philip,

Your options are greatly simplified and you are making several assumptions.

Option A assumes adequate understanding of what "Normality" means and when

it kicks in. We (well, the LLC) does NOT have the option to wait more than N

months to decide. Moving the meeting takes time. N is not large.

Options C and D may or may not incur a seven figure penalty. That's a business

matter between the venue and the LLC, it is at least theoretically possible

to have another delay and a promise to come back in N years. This has happened

before.

How option D would affect non-US citizens living in the US is of course an

open question. I don't have the stats on how many IETF people this would

potentially impact, but any meeting in any location involves barriers for

some segment of our attendees.

My main point is that although we can't predict the future, the uncertainty

is great enough to take action soon. We did this with the "Muslim Ban," we

can (and I think should) do it again.

Ole

On Apr 10, 2025, at 11:52, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I sympathize with the sentiment. But there are the following possible options

A) Normality resumes, we can hold the meeting as normal.

B) Situation worsens, meeting is effectively lost

C) We move the meeting, normality resumes

D) We move the meeting, Situation worsens

Cost of A is zero of course, cost of C or D looks like it is a seven figure sum, I am not seeing a meeting with greatly reduced attendance as being a similar cost, most standards orgs I have participated in have one meeting a year.

What is the probability of A? Probably higher than folk imagine and I suspect that option D might still lead to a really, really bad outcome.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 1:57 PM Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@xxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

As a resident of San Francisco and a "Green Card" holder,

the most convenient location for me for an IETF meeting would

obviously be right here, as it would require no more than

20 minutes of local travel and would not involve leaving

and re-entering the country.

But given the current situation which above all reads "uncertainty,"

I would recommend that the LLC find a location NOT in the USA and

I have let them know this through the feedback mechanism. Things

may change dramatically between now and November 2026, but they may

not and the LLC will have to act soon in order to secure an alternative

venue.

How common the reported incidents are or how "ordinary" the

affected people are is really not the issue. Uncertainty is.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell:   +1 415-370-4628

Docomo: +81 90 3337-9311

Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen@xxxxxx
E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Apr 10, 2025, at 10:44, Ofer Inbar <cos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 12:56:02PM -0400,
Tzadik Vanderhoof <tzadik.vanderhoof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes I can. Ordinary people, that are not involved in crime or linked to
terrorism will not be affected in any way. And the worse that will happen
to anyone is to be removed from the US (or placed in detention if they
resist being removed).

I would like to point out that this very much does not seem to be true
at this time, based on following the news.  "Ordinary people" with no
links to crime or terrorism are both getting denied entry for reasons
that would not have come up before January, and also sometimes being
placed in detention when they are willing to leave the country.  It
is much more risky than many other countries the IETF has met at.

Some examples just off the top of my head:

* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-musk-french-scientist-detained
 They asked to search his phone, found private messages critical of
 the administration, and denied entry on those grounds.

* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/27/russian-scientist-harvard-medical-school-ice-detention
 Harvard asked her to bring back samples for the lab, she did not
 understand the required paperwork, in the past this would have been
 a minor fine, but this time they decided to revoke her visa over it.

* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/05/i-was-a-british-tourist-trying-to-leave-america-then-i-was-detained-shackled-and-sent-to-an-immigration-detention-centre
 She was denied entry for a valid reason although one that would
 likely have not been noticed in the past, but the more serious
 issue here is that she was willing to fly home immediately and
 had the money for a plane ticket, but instead they placed her
 in indefinite detention and she only got out weeks later because
 friends & family were able to get media attention.

These are just the few I had on my mind, from memory, when I caught up
on some of this thread just now and saw this email.  There are many
many more examples.

Anecdotally, from speaking to coworkers and friends who have travelled
to the US in the past couple of months - both as tourists and for work
- the questioning and attitudes are noticeably harsher than their past
experiences travelling to the US.  Not all, but a majority.
 -- Cos

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell:   +1 415-370-4628

Docomo: +81 90 3337-9311

Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen@xxxxxx
E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx