Subject: Re: [IAOC] suggestion for the next IETFs

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 08:56:51 -0500

On 10/30/2014 09:24 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
> We have had a page online where individuals could request a Letter of
> Invitation
> for meetings well in advance of the meeting.  For some reason the link
> to it 
> vanished from a Meetings page, but AMS is working to get it restored.
> 

Ray,
	What's the URL for this page?

It would be really nice if we could avoid repeating the attendee visa
issues of this meeting in Dallas.  (I know of a number of ID authors/WG
participants who are unable to attend due to their visa's not coming
through in time.)

Much thanks,

Lou

---

From: Hosnieh Rafiee <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:19:52 +0000

> participants who are unable to attend due to their visa's not coming

 +1

One more suggestion is that please, if possible, re-consider holding any event at Honolulu. I understand that this is a tourist attraction place in the US and many folks are glad to have meeting on such place but unfortunately it appears that the chance of getting visa for this place is less than other places in the US ( I do not know the reason because once you get visa you can travel any place in the US but...). 

Last suggestion is that if there is upcoming event close to IETF like election, etc. please avoid to have IETF in that country and change the location to other countries. Usually the date of election are almost predefined and known. This really impact the visa process because the governments usually do not like many tourist or external people at the country during elections and pause the visa processes until this event finishes. This was true for IETF this time.

Thanks again
Best,
Hosnieh

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 06:29:10 -0800

On 10/30/2014 7:58 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Note that this is sometimes restricted by national law. I believe if
> the IETF were to meet in Switzerland, it would be illegal to issue a
> Letter to be used as the basis for a visa application to anyone who
> has not already actually paid their registration fee for the meeting.

Simple goal:  We want folks to be able to attend.  Everything else flows
from this goal.

If someone needs a visa, we want them to be able to get it.  Figure out
a reasonable amount of time to permit visa processing, and offer the
letter from that time.

If there are constraints on issuing letters, satisfy the constraints.
As an example, there is no inherent reason we cannot open registration
farther in advance.

If...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 12:59:53 -0600

> As an example, there is no inherent reason we cannot open registration

The fees might not be set that far in advance.  But still, people who
need the letter might be charged the same fee as the last meeting
prior to requesting early registration.  The IETF might even charge a
nominal early registration fee of -say- $50, if it doesn't negatively
impact the visa process.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:02:21 -0500

> nominal early registration fee of -say- $50, if it doesn't negatively

We have an early registration discount and fee increases are always
announced more than two meetings ahead.

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 22:25:15 +0100

Dave,

> a reasonable amount of time to permit visa processing, and offer the

That begs the the question about what is a "reasonable time", if you
apply for visa 3 months ahead and it is still not processed the Friday
before the IETF meeting, is that reasonable?

It also begs the question what we do if the authorities that handle the
visa applications do respond within the reasonable time.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 22:17:14 -0000

Reasonable, from the IETF perspective, has to mean "early enough that most people who have to apply for visas through the normal system will stand a good chance of getting a visa in time."

Do we know what that time line is?  No.
Do we know that 3 months is not enough for the USA for *this* meeting? Yes.

Given that, it seems to be imperative to get the process for Dallas running at once. I'm sure the IAOC is aware of the urgency for that meeting.

Moving forward, it would seem that 6 months is not an unreasonable target.

BTW, it isn't enough for the IETF to make everything available (letters of invitation, booking references, registration...). The intending attendees also have to remember to register and apply for visas. Of course, that is their affair, but we can help to remind them.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: 07 November 2014 21:25
> To: [email-masked]; IAOC
> Cc: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: [IAOC] suggestion for the next IETFs
> 
> Dave,
>

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:12:48 -1000

All;

We hear you, from those who had not received their visas, and from those I solicited
their status to expedite their applications.

> Do we know that 3 months is not enough for the USA for *this* meeting? Yes.

Yes.

> Given that, it seems to be imperative to get the process for Dallas running at once. I'm sure the IAOC is aware of the urgency for that meeting.

It is.  There will be an announcement within a week to address this.

> Moving forward, it would seem that 6 months is not an unreasonable target.

It’s not and will be separately addressed and announced.

Ray
IAD

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 18:42:48 -0500

Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > Reasonable, from the IETF perspective, has to mean "early enough that
    > most people who have to apply for visas through the normal system will
    > stand a good chance of getting a visa in time."

    > Do we know what that time line is?  No.  Do we know that 3 months is
    > not enough for the USA for *this* meeting? Yes.

I said the following at the mic about a year ago, but I'll say it again.

The VISA situation is really rather a monkey wrench into the nomcom process.
Exotic locations for November are also an issue for the nomcom process.
I think that Xing Li is the first CN representation on the I*, and for
him to have an issue, and when he is up for renewal is, in my opinion,
a big deal.

My message to the IAOC is simple: November meetings need to be stable.
Innovate and do outreach during the other meetings of the cycle.  Many
have argued for picking a small number of locations and going back
regularly.  
I will re-iterate this, and say: please start with the November meeting. 

If I needed a VISA to get to Hawaii (I don't... I sit at gate E80 in YVR, on
the US side of customs... easiest crossing yet I think), and it hadn't
arrived by Oct. 1, I would have had to cancel because the bump in airfare
would have been a major problem.   

Do airlines give full refunds if you don't get a VISA, I doubt it.  I suspect
that some airlines won't even book a ticket until you have a visa; I also
know that some countries' won't even issue a visa until you have a ticket... 

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:58:35 -0800

On 11/7/2014 1:25 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> If someone needs a visa, we want them to be able to get it.  Figure
>> out a reasonable amount of time to permit visa processing, and
>> offer the letter from that time.
> 
> That begs the the question about what is a "reasonable time"

I meant to beg exactly that question.

1.  We need a reasonable basis for deciding on that amount of time

2.  We need a reasonable basis for believing it is sufficient for the
specific venue

3.  We need to arrange the rest of our processes to ensure that that
amount of time really is available for folks to get their visas.

On 11/7/2014 2:17 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> most people who have to apply for visas through the normal system
> will stand a good chance of getting a visa in time."
> 
> Given that, it seems to be imperative to get the process for Dallas
> running at once. I'm sure the IAOC is aware of the urgency for that
> meeting.
> 
> BTW, it isn't enough for the IETF to make everything available
(letters of invitation, booking references, registration...). The
intending attendees also have to remember to register and apply for
visas. Of course, that is their affair, but we can help to remind them.

+10

d/

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 09:51:19 -1000

>> Invitation for meetings well in advance of the meeting.  For some
>> reason the link to it vanished from a Meetings page, but AMS is
>> working to get it restored.
> 

sadly, this is far from a new issue, and we have not done very well on
it (four years os having the 'asian' meeting in north america).  for
this meeting, the impact on the nomcom seems to have finally drawn
enough attention to it that we have an opportunity to change things
(thanks michael).  

we really need to focus in the visa issuue when choosing venues.  and
not just the november venue.

we really need to change the system so that prople can get help with
the visa issue, e.g. invitation letters, much earlier.  from many
countries it is a long process.

it would be good to hear from those having, or who had, visa issues what
they think we could do better.

randy

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 22:37:38 +0100

Randy,

> countries it is a long process.

I agree that the visa issue need to be considered when choosing the
venue.

But if we start pushing the visa horizon much beyond 3 moths we will
run into other problems, like 6 months before the March meeting I will
not know if I've my contract renewed.

I would say that 3 months is n unreasonably long time to wait for a
visa. If we are not sure that everyone can have a response on a visa
application in three months, simply look for another venue.

/Loa

--

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:57:28 -1000

On 11/07/2014 01:42 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Do airlines give full refunds if you don't get a VISA, I doubt it.

Not at all.

> I suspect that some airlines won't even book a ticket until you have a visa;

This is incorrect. No airline that I know of check that you do have a
visa when booking or buying a ticket (after all, it's in their own
interest that you bu the ticket, even if you're not going to be able to
board!)

> I also

IIRC, in most cases, what they require is an itinerary/reservation
rather than a ticket.

The problem here is that, as you note, you have two options:

1) Buy the ticket prior to getting the visa -- with the risk of not
getting it in time and hence wasting the ticket/money, or,

2) Wait till you get the visa before buying the ticket -- at which point
the ticket prices can be insane.

All the above sad, I should say that, as far as central/south-americans
are concerned, e.g. Europe tends to be way more friendly than North
America: I can travel anywhere in Europe (except Russia, I think)
without a visa... but need a visa for US and Canada.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 04:46:28 -0500

--On Monday, November 10, 2014 17:57 -1000 Fernando Gont
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...

Not unless one buys fully refundable tickets, of course - see
below.

>...
> IIRC, in most cases, what they require is an
> itinerary/reservation rather than a ticket.

If a reservation is required, it can be almost equivalent to
requiring a ticket, since many airlines won't hold a reservation
for a cheap/ refundable ticket for very long without buying the
ticket.  "Not very long" can be as short as hours.  Sometimes,
one can buy a reservation hold for a longer period (72 hours, a
week, ...) but that price, while much lower that than of a
ticket, is typically non-refundable if one does not end up
buying the ticket (and sometimes even if one does).

> 1) Buy the ticket prior to getting the visa -- with the risk
> of not getting it in time and hence wasting the ticket/money,
> or,
> 
> 2) Wait till you get the visa before buying the ticket -- at
> which point the ticket prices can be insane.

(3) Buy a fully-refundable ticket, whose advance-purchase price
may or may not be significantly lower than late purchase,
"Insane" prices but will certainly be a lot more than the
non-refundable ones you refer to in (1).

> All the above sad, I should say that, as far as
> central/south-americans are concerned, e.g. Europe tends to be
> way more friendly than North America: I can travel anywhere in
> Europe (except Russia, I think) without a visa... but need a
> visa for US and Canada.

Unfortunately, generalizing from any given country or regional
experience is not helpful.  As an example, a few central/south
american countries reciprocate US and/or Canada visa
requirements and procedures, not only requiring visas, but
pulling the same "we will not formally turn you down, but may
keep your application in a 'processing' state until the time of
the meeting or other event, or at least the plausible airfare
window, has passed".   I speak from experience, having had
Brazilian and Chinese visa applications timed out despite
allowing lots of application time.

Also note that there are country pairs in which the destination
country may be very relaxed about tourist visas (or waivers for
tourists) but may require formal visas for business or meeting
attendance.  A subset of them do make an effort to keep track
and react very harshly to someone entering as a tourist and then
doing business/ professional stuff.  One thing I think no one
wants is to have to answer a future "have you ever been deported
from a country or denied entry because of visa or immigration
violations" question with "yes".

Generalizations are _very_ risky.

Michael's conclusions are, IMO, the correct ones.  I would
restate them as:

(1) Do not experiment with November meetings.  Pick places where
we at least know what we are getting into.

(2) Do not pick locations that are known for being tourist
destinations -- they can make consular officials nervous in ways
that locations where no sane person would go except on business
do not... and nervousness often results in visa delays.

(3) Set things up so that people have _lots_ of time for dealing
with the slowest and more conservative of processes.  That
probably includes not only getting our invitation letters out
early, but having experts design them for maximum persuasiveness
and probably individualizing them more than I assume we have
been doing (but I don't know, having never seen one).

    john

      john

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:10:49 +0000

Hi,

If a reservation is needed in order to get the visa, some people book a refundable ticket for the visa application. Then, when/if they get the visa, they cancel the ticket and buy a new, cheaper non-refundable ticket.

(Of course, if the visa is accepted very close to the meeting, cheaper tickets may not be available anymore.)

There are also so called cancel-for-any-reason travel insurances. Not sure if they cover the whole cost of the ticket, but afaik at least a major part.

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
Sent: 11 November 2014 11:46
To: Fernando Gont; Michael Richardson; 'IAOC'; 'IETF Discussion'
Subject: Re: on recurring favourite locations for November IETF meetings

>> Do airlines give full refunds if you don't get a VISA, I doubt it.

Not unless one buys fully refundable tickets, of course - see below.

> IIRC, in most cases, what they require is an  itinerary/reservation 

If a reservation is required, it can be almost equivalent to requiring a ticket, since many airlines won't hold a reservation for a cheap/ refundable ticket for very long without buying the ticket.  "Not very long" can be as short as hours.  Sometimes, one can buy a reservation hold for a longer period (72 hours, a week, ...) but that price, while much lower that than of a ticket, is typically non-refundable if one does not end up buying the ticket (and sometimes even if one does).

> 2) Wait till you get the visa before buying the ticket -- at which 
> point the ticket prices can be insane.

(3) Buy a fully-refundable ticket, whose advance-purchase price may or may not be significantly lower than late purchase, "Insane" prices but will certainly be a lot more than the non-refundable ones you refer to in (1).

> central/south-americans are concerned, e.g. Europe tends to be way 
> more friendly than North America: I can travel anywhere in Europe 
> (except Russia, I think) without a visa... but need a visa for US and 
> Canada.

Unfortunately, generalizing from any given country or regional experience is not helpful.  As an example, a few central/south american countries reciprocate US and/or Canada visa requirements and procedures, not only requiring visas, but pulling the same "we will not formally turn you down, but may keep your application in a 'processing' state until the time of the meeting or other event, or at least the plausible airfare
window, has passed".   I speak from experience, having had
Brazilian and Chinese visa applications timed out despite allowing lots of application time.

Also note that there are country pairs in which the destination country may be very relaxed about tourist visas (or waivers for
tourists) but may require formal visas for business or meeting attendance.  A subset of them do make an effort to keep track and react very harshly to someone entering as a tourist and then doing business/ professional stuff.  One thing I think no one wants is to have to answer a future "have you ever been deported from a country or denied entry because of visa or immigration violations" question with "yes".

Michael's conclusions are, IMO, the correct ones.  I would restate them as:

(1) Do not experiment with November meetings.  Pick places where we at least know what we are getting into.

(2) Do not pick locations that are known for being tourist destinations -- they can make consular officials nervous in ways that locations where no sane person would go except on business do not... and nervousness often results in visa delays.

(3) Set things up so that people have _lots_ of time for dealing with the slowest and more conservative of processes.  That probably includes not only getting our invitation letters out early, but having experts design them for maximum persuasiveness and probably individualizing them more than I assume we have been doing (but I don't know, having never seen one).

    john

      john

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:51:38 +0100

Folks,

Yes, there are all sorts of things you can do to be able to apply for
visa, but that does not relly cut to the heart of the question.

Why do we place our meetings at places where it takes ridiculously long
time to not have your visa approved on time!

Looking at the Chinese example, there are 119 registered from China,
and about 70 (maybe 80) of those are here. The main reason is that
they can't travel because of visa.

Now of the 70 (or 80) that are here a fair number are here because they
earlier applied for 1-year multiple entry visas.

This makes the percentage that applied for but did not get a visa very
close to 50%.

Draw you own conclusions!

/Loa

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:53:09 -0800 (PST)

Another possiblity is "Trip Insurance" ... never having had to face
a visa issue, I've not read the details, but some policies I"ve read
seem to say you can get a refund for any trip canceled by a cause
one can't control.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:23:06 -0500

> time to not have your visa approved on time!

Because we are meeting in a physical location on Earth, where there
are countries and sovereign governments, and we are not a government
activity, and our participants come from all over the world?
Moreover, we're trying to hold the meeting in a place that is
convenient for at least some of the participants, and in a location
with lots of good connectivity to the rest of the Internet.

Even if the vagaries of all the different countries' pairwise
arrangements were not a consideration at the outset, we plan our
meeting locations years in advance, and politcal developments in
coutries that cause immigration policy changes are not something we
can hold constant.  Ask a Canadian to explain why visas are required
for those travelling on a Czech or Mexican passport, for instance.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:27:29 -1000

> they can't travel because of visa.

It appears to be the case that visa applications were being handled fairly quickly from China for a couple of years, and people got used to it, so got in the habit of applying later.   And then there was an unexpected increase in processing in time that coincided with this IETF.   IOW the timing of visa applications isn't predictable by the IETF.   If we make it possible to apply earlier and people don't apply earlier because they have expectations as to the speed of the approval process that wind up not being met, we can't do anything about that.   And this can happen with any country: visa approval speed can vary depending on politics, staffing, a flu outbreak at the wrong time, a problem with the information systems at the embassy, etc.

Also, when I've talked to my colleagues from other continents about this, I hear from a lot of them that despite the visa difficulties, coming to the U.S. is actually an attractive thing, because they can do business here that they couldn't do elsewhere.

So while it would definitely be easier if we just had a barge outside the 250-mile limit with an airstrip, I don't think "choosing a location where getting visas is easy" is actually a practicable suggestion.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:29:52 -0600

> activity, and our participants come from all over the world?

You know...  we could make it a cruise in the caribbean.  Attendees
could fly in to any of a fairly large number of countries, then take a
boat ride to the cruise ship on which the meeting is held.

Also, this is not remotely a realistic scenario, but it is an exercise
in thinking outside the box.  And the outside of the box is all
"ewwww", because cruise ships (ewwww).

Nico
--

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:32:09 -0600

> So while it would definitely be easier if we just had a barge outside the 250-mile limit with an airstrip, I don't think "choosing a location where getting visas is easy" is actually a practicable…

Or any cruise ship near international airports of enough countries.

I don't think we're going to have an aircraft carrier for this though.
Also, for the U.S. the limit is 12 nautical miles.

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:39:42 +0100

Andrew,

> for those travelling on a Czech or Mexican passport, for instance.

point is that if peple don't get visas we do not meet some of our key
people at all

/Loa

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:44:38 -1000

> Also, for the U.S. the limit is 12 nautical miles.

Yeah, we can stop with the boat related fantasies / sealand  /
mysteriously well connected countries that everyone can travel to.

They don't get us further down the road.

Thanks
joel

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:50:26 -1000

So returning to the core point, if we are aware that key participants,
document authors, people with substantive contributions can't come solely
because of visa issues, The primary response does seem to me to be, to
select a destination they can handle.

Can I ask if the economies like HK or SG or dare I say it TW or JP or KR
would in fact, be better for these communities?

What I'm trying to do is ask which specific economies would work well for
the problem.

I understand it would create its own second-effect problems. I understand
the IETF is magic super plus unicorn strength and so can't use the
conference venues in these economies because doge because weekend because
cookies because dislike because bulgogi because waaa but I am trying to
understand what the current disaffected community might want, so I can
weigh up the consequences.

Thats the side of this equation I don't understand.

Or Dubai. I mean Emirates fly everywhere. If we met in Dubai, would enough
of the un-present be able to be present? Or do we just trade a US visa
application problem for an 'I am a shiite iranian and I can't get into this
economy because they are sunni and hate me' problem?

(I don't want to meet in Dubai. I actually would love to meet in
Minneapolis but I am perhaps fringe)

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, joel jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >> So while it would definitely be easier if we just had a barge outside
> the 250-mile limit with an airstrip, I don't think "choosing a location
> where getting visas is easy" is actually a practicable suggestion.
> >

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:09:06 -0800

On 11/11/2014 10:27 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> It appears to be the case that visa applications were being handled fairly quickly from China for a couple of years, and people got used to it, so got in the habit of applying later.   And then there was an unexpected increase in processing in time that coincided with this IETF.

There are two basic issues in the above.  The first is an assertion
about a pattern.  The second is about a change in that pattern.  To
generalize this, we'd need to include it as an on-going part of venue
selection.

I believe the IETF does not generally consider established patterns of
visa handling, when choosing a venue.

Other than this being the specific reason for exlcuding Malaysia, while
I was on the IAOC, I don't recall any serious analysis of visa issues
over the last 4 years within the IAOC's meetings committee.  We worry
about violence and price and facilities and geography and other tidbits,
but I don't recall visas being a factor.

I'm not finding a comparison service online, that analyzes these
patterns, but it could/should be worth finding one.

We need to be careful to be pragmatic about this, which means neither
ignoring it nor demanding perfection...

d/

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:30:22 -0500

> point is that if peple don't get visas we do not meet some of our key

Sure, which is why we move around.  The current state of affairs is
admittedly quite bad in that we've had a series of nominally
Asia-Pacific meetings which have included "Vancouver" as being in the
Asia-Pacific.  The IAOC has, I think, discussed this in broad terms
without specifying the details (since those were subject to NDA
because they were part of negotiations).  In the broadest term, we've
the problem that we announce our meeting dates way in advance without
already having a venue in hand, which means that in a negotiation we
have a weak hand.  Apparently, that has turned out to be a problem in
the A-P region.  I note we're going to Japan in 2015.

At every meeting there is some case about people not being able to get
there, which is certainly a problem.  But I find it vexing how this
always causes an _ad hoc_ chorus heave into existence to say, "Why
don't we just?"  

What one wants is a weeklong meeting of you and 1000 of your closest
friends with dates fixed several years in advance and with a wide
range of constraints as to affordability, ease of attendance for a
very wide array of people, unusual requirements like "minimise trains"
and "only use plastic water bottles", slightly more usual requirements
like "range of foodstuffs" and "ample availability of significant
quantities of drink with quiet-enough places for 30 people to discuss
something nobody else could possibly care about", and no barriers to
entry for anyone.  I'm not sure we're going to be able to engineer
that solution here on this list.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:48:08 +1300

On 12/11/2014 08:30, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...
> always causes an _ad hoc_ chorus heave into existence to say, "Why

Indeed. The IAOC has to plan locations several years in advance, which
means that they will choose locations for year N+2 that avoid the problems
and satisfy the requirements known in year N. That's the best they can do.

The main learning from this meeting is surely: make it possible to get
invitation letters 6 months in advance.

    Brian

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:44:00 -1000

On 11/10/2014 11:46 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> ticket.

Agree. My point was that, strictly speaking, you do not need to buy a
ticket to apply for the visa.

> allowing lots of application time.

I'm aware about the "reciprocity" thing (for instance, Argentina charges
a reciprocity fee to australians, canadians, and usa-ians).

But what I meant is that there are places that are known to be more
painful to travel to than others. And that of "Europe is generally
eaiser to travel to (for central/shouth-americans) than USA or Canada",
is still true. IIRC, citizens from any south american country are
required a visa for US and canada, while quite a few of us
(south/central american countries) can travel to europe without any visa.

> attendance.

Agreed. An example is India: travel visas are easy (and free!). business
visas are painful (and cost money!).

> we at least know what we are getting into.

Sorry, I missed the discussion: what's so special about November?

Thanks,

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:14:12 -1000

Hi Michael,

> On 7 Nov 2014, at 13:42, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Most certainly not, unless there is a separately purchased travel insurance.
> I suspect

Very much so.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:12:29 -1000

> ignoring it nor demanding perfection...

I really don't think it's even possible to make predictions about this.   The best policy is for attendees to be pessimistic rather than optimistic about visa processing times, and for the IETF to make it possible for them to act on that pessimism.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:49:11 -1000

My take on this has already been circulated earlier: 
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2014/11/getting-visas-to-an-ietf-meeting/

This is really a key problem, and no amount of advice we can give on 
how to deal with tickets or improvements at the IETF side will 
fundamentally change the fact that we would like attending an IETF 
meeting be easier.

For what it is worth, if there was an option to pick another place with 
less problems I would immediately recommend doing that. As lovely 
as Hawaii is, and as productive as we seem to be in the meeting so 
far. However, I’d warn people against jumping to too easy conclusions. 
Just a couple of examples of arguments and counter arguments below.

“People should apply for visas sooner.” Yes, but I have colleagues 
who make late decisions on submitting proposals and getting involved 
in other people’s projects. Forcing people to decide earlier will make it 
hard to let more people join. And I made my travel bookings two weeks 
ago, because of day job meetings right next to the IETF week didn’t 
firm up before that. Other people will have similar issues.

“We should open the invitation process sooner”. We will. But see above.

“We should go to Europe”. But we are meeting in Europe. And based on
all statistics, we are able to get the widest audience when we meet in 
major European locations. However, we have a 1-1-1 policy and 
rotating around the world will overall make it possible that it easy
for people from various places to attend. I do not want to make 
participation hard for North American participants either.

“There is a new proposal in <government X> process and that will 
improve things”. Yeah. Maybe. Not holding my breath. But kudos 
for everyone who is improving, it will be appreciated.

“There are access problems in all places, they are just different.” This 
is true, but it is also true that some places have broader and more 
difficult issues than others.

“The fall is a bad time for a difficult visa application, because lots of 
students are coming in as well”. Probably true. There may be other 
factors as well, however, and, e.g., random changes or issues in 
administration may have queue-up effects as well.

“We should meet in Canada or Mexico instead”. We keep meeting 
quite often in Canada, and will probably do so more in the future. 
But I also get mixed feedback on whether the Canadian visa process 
is really easier. I think it probably is, but it is not as clear as some people 
may think.

Likely outcome? I predict this: 1) IETF will open invitations process 
sooner 2) people have now learned that they need to add buffer to their 
visa applications process 3) We will keep rotating through continents 4) we 
cannot change the next few meetings 5) we will try to gather more accurate 
data about CA-US differences 6) we will avoid the risky visa places for 
November meetings 7) for future meetings, we will probably adjust balance 
to meeting even more often in Canada, but we will also have some US meetings.

Just my crystal ball, but this seems roughly what we can and should do.

Jari

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:52:26 -1000

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
> invitation letters 6 months in advance.

Why 6 months? If location is known 2 years in advance, why delay the invitation letter at all? While it may not make sense to put the letter together until the hotel is locked down, as soon as that happens there ought to be a tool that  the potential attendee can put in their name & IETF### and get back the appropriate version of an invitation letter which includes city & hotel of the meeting. 

Tony

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:22:51 -1000

On 11/11/2014 10:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> is really easier. 

Just in case you find a datapoint useful:

1) IMO, it's a myth that getting a Canadian visa is easier than getting
a USA visa. I should also say that it's also a myth that the
immigration/bording-crossing for Canda is friendlier than entering the
USA (it's probably the other way around) -- I just make this note
because for some reason apparently it's widely assumed that Canada is
friendlier.

2) At least the last time I got a USA visa, you had to get an
appointment way in advance (two months or so)... so getting a USA visa
could take 3+ months. OTOH, you can typically get a Canadian visa in 10
days (or less). i.e., time-wise, getting a Canadian visa is better.

3) You can now apply to the canadian visa online (you can submit scanned
versions of your documents etc on their web site). This is really cool,
particularly if you want to apply while your elsewhere (i.e., while
traveling).

4) The canadian visa will never span longer than your passport expiry
date. That means that if your passport will expire in two years, you
recently-got multiple-entry canadian visa will also expire in 2 years.
OTOH, the validity of a USA visa can span past your passport expiration
lifetime. So in the last ten years or so I had to get 5+ Canadian visas,
but only one USA visa. -- i.e., in this sense, getting a US visa is better.

5) When it comes to "requirements", the safe way to go is to give them:
 + an itinerary
 + property (flat/house) ownership certificate (if you can)
 + job certificate/income proof
 + letter of invitation
 + and, obviously, if you can show that you have travelled around,
   things typically are way easier (i.e., it's way harder to get your
   first visa with your first passport than you fourth visa with a
   stamped-all-around passport).

Thanks,

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:07:00 -0600

'Tis true that Canadian immigration can be unfriendly.  One time they
were upset that I didn't have my return trip ticket with me.  The
agent was upset and thought I might like to stay there (well, it was
Vancouver!).  I tried explaining that, y'know, tickets are electronic
now, but it didn't work; I decided not to say anything about the
uselessness of a bit of thin cardboard with some text printed on it
that the fellow wasn't going to double check and that anyone could
print.  Some things are best left unsaid.

In the end the agent decided -evidently- that I wasn't worth the
trouble, and after some hemming and hawing he accepted my printed
itinerary and let me through.

I'd advise travelers to get their return tickets printed, but I've had
such requests refused by gate agents in the past.  I'm guessing by now
the immigration services have enough access to airline booking data
that it no longer matters.

But yeah, immigration can be no fun.  Still, I think cruise ships must
be less fun still...

Nico
--

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 23:09:38 -0500

Nico Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > were upset that I didn't have my return trip ticket with me.  The agent
    > was upset and thought I might like to stay there (well, it was

I had the same thing once from a US customs agent.
And then she said that she didn't want to see it on my computer (I hadn't
offered, and I doubt I had a copy on the computer rather than, "in the
cloud").

It does regularly remind me that these people are trained in security
threatre, and they likely wouldn't recognize a fake boarding pass.  
One might think it's all a ruse to trip you up... but... I'm doubtful.

    > that it no longer matters.

You'd think so... and how does the return ticket force you to show up at the
airport?  And should they be more suspicious if you have a full-fare return
ticket?  (i.e. so you can just cash it in...)

    > But yeah, immigration can be no fun.  Still, I think cruise ships must

the latency through the satellite link would suck...

-- 
]               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: "Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 01:20:34 +0000

It will greatly alleviate visa problem in the future with the new visa policy. I believe most the IETF attendees from China are qualified for 10 years multiple entry USA visa. Check this out: 
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2014-11/11/content_34020157.htm

- Miao

> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 2:27 AM
> To: Loa Andersson
> Cc: [email-masked]
> It appears to be the case that visa applications were being handled fairly
> quickly from China for a couple of years, and people got used to it, so got in
> the habit of applying later.   And then there was an unexpected increase in
> processing in time that coincided with this IETF.   IOW the timing of visa
> applications isn't predictable by the IETF.   If we make it possible to apply
> earlier and people don't apply earlier because they have expectations as to
> the speed of the approval process that wind up not being met, we can't do
> anything about that.   And this can happen with any country: visa approval
> speed can vary depending on politics, staffing, a flu outbreak at the wrong
> time, a problem with the information systems at the embassy, etc.
> 
> Also, when I've talked to my colleagues from other continents about this, I
> hear from a lot of them that despite the visa difficulties, coming to the U.S.
> is actually an attractive thing, because they can do business here that they
> couldn't do elsewhere.
> 
> So while it would definitely be easier if we just had a barge outside the
> 250-mile limit with an airstrip, I don't think "choosing a location where
> getting visas is easy" is actually a practicable suggestion.