From nobody Mon May 9 12:03:50 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietf.org Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28BD012D5D0; Mon, 9 May 2016 12:03:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Secretariat To: "IETF Announcement List" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.20.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160509190337.18345.90846.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 12:03:37 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: [Recentattendees] IETF 96 - Registration and Hotel Reservations Now Open! X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Reply-To: IETF Agenda List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 19:03:37 -0000 IETF 96 Berlin, Germany July 17 - 22, 2016 Host: Juniper IETF 96 Information: http://ietf.org/meeting/96/index.html Register online at: http://ietf.org/meeting/register.html 1. Registration 2. Visas & Letters of Invitation 3. Accommodations 1. Registration: A. Early-Bird Registration: USD 700.00 plus VAT*, if paid in full prior to 23:59 UTC 8 July 2016 B. After Early-Bird cutoff: USD 875.00 plus VAT* C. Full-time Student Registrations: USD 150.00 (with proper ID) plus VAT* D. One Day Pass Registration: USD 375.00 plus VAT* E. Registration Cancellation Cutoff for registration cancellation is Monday, 11 July 2016 at UTC 23:59. Cancellations are subject to a 10% (ten percent) cancellation fee if requested by that date and time. F. Online Registration and Payment ends Friday, 15 July, 2016, 17:00 local Berlin time G. On-site Registration begins on Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 10:00 local Berlin time. * VAT FAQ - http://ietf.org/meeting/96/vat-faq.html 2. Visas & Letters of Invitation: After you complete the registration process, you may request an electronic IETF letter of invitation. The registration system also allows for you to request hard copy IETF letters of invitation. You may request one at a later time by following the link provided in the confirmation email. Please note that local letters of invitation for inclusion with Visa applications will not be provided through the IETF Registration system. To request a local letter of invitation, see: http://ietf.org/meeting/96/local-loi.html 3. Accommodations: The IETF is holding a block of 480 guest rooms at the The InterContinental Berlin, the headquarter's hotel. Room rates include breakfast and in-room high-speed Internet access. Reservation Cutoff Date: 25 June 2016 Reservations Link: https://resweb.passkey.com/go/IETF2016 The IETF is holding a block of 250 guest rooms at the Pullman Berlin Schweizerhof, the overflow hotel, which is located right across the street from the InterContinental Berlin. Room rates include breakfast and in-room high-speed Internet access. Reservation Cutoff Date: 3 July 2016 Reservations Link: https://aws.passkey.com/e/13810598 For more information about accommodations during IETF 96, see: http://ietf.org/meeting/96/hotel.html From nobody Tue May 17 11:14:37 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietf.org Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7C412DCD7; Tue, 17 May 2016 11:14:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: IAOC Chair To: "IETF Announcement List" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.20.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:14:36 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, 95all@ietf.org Subject: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Reply-To: iaoc@ietf.org List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:14:36 -0000 On April 7, 2016, the IAOC announced that IETF 100 scheduled for November 2017 will be held in Singapore. This venue, as any other, was announced as soon as it was under contract and thus secured. Following this announcement, concerns were raised about anti-LGBT laws in Singapore that the IAOC was not aware of. We apologise for missing this. The IAOC took the action to review the current committed plan for IETF 100, and also to review our meeting planning procedures to ensure that we have input at appropriate points to ensure issues are identified and addressed before contracts are signed and announcements made. The process updates are in progress, and an outline of the current update is copied below. Our focus here is on bringing IETF 100 to closure. Having reviewed the Singapore proposal in the light of the plenary input, we have a proposal for moving forward and would like community input — see below. Review The IAOC meetings committee reviewed the options for IETF 100, including investigating costs and possibilities of moving the meeting to a different location. In keeping with the updated process outlined below, they checked with official advisory sources and consulted with specialty travel services, frequent travelers, and local representatives about the concerns that have been raised. The input received from those sources is consistent with the text on http://travel.state.gov [1]. >From that research, at a strictly practical level, the IAOC believes that it is possible to have a successful meeting in Singapore. The IAOC proposes that holding the meeting in Singapore is the best option for IETF 100 at this time. Next Step: The IAOC would like to hear from the community by June 1st, 2016 on barriers to holding a successful meeting in Singapore. Responses should be directed to venue-selection@ietf.org Again, we apologize for the failures in the venue selection process that took place here and we are moving to enhance that process, to avoid this type of error in the future. Leslie Daigle, for the IAOC. [1] Relevant text from http://travel.state.gov : "While the Singapore government has stated that it will not enforce this section of the penal code, the law remains on the statute books. Singapore does not recognize same-sex unions. LGBT individuals may have difficulty gaining employment in certain sectors of the civil service." [2] Appendix: Updated Process N.B.: These are draft procedures being further refined as we speak. For more information and input on the overall meeting venue selection process document, please join the mtgvenue@ietf.org mailing list. IETF meeting venues are selected through a process which involves several steps and numerous specific criteria. The IAOC and its Meeting Committee are in the process of better documenting these steps in the Internet-Draft draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process. Based on the experience the following changes have been introduced to the draft: Section 3.3.1: o Review available travel information (such as https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country.html) for issues that would be counter to our principles on inclusiveness etc. [Mandatory] And these steps have been added to the process covered in Section 3.5 of the draft: D. The Meetings Committee consults Official Advisory Sources, consults with speciality travel services, frequent travelers and local contacts, to determine if there are barriers to holding a successful meeting in the target cities. E. The IAOC asks the community whether there are any barriers to holding a successful meeting in the target cities. As covered in the draft, these steps will occur very early in the venue selection process – at least 3 years prior. For the current set of meetings being planned, the timing of the steps will be driven by contract schedule and will occur before future contract signing. From nobody Wed May 25 15:08:28 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietf.org Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7006B12D56F; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:08:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: IAOC Chair To: "IETF Announcement List" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.21.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:08:18 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:08:21 -0000 All, In the IAOC's previous message on this topic we stated that the IAOC believed that it is possible to hold a successful meeting in Singapore, and that meeting in Singapore is the best option for IETF 100. This statement was based on several factors, including evaluation of the site based on the requirements and process now being updated and tracked in draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02. In particular, this included consulting with the additional information sources identified in the document (specialty travel services, etc), and no specific issues were identified as to actual situation in Singapore. More detail on the information we have to hand is provided below. Additional arguments have come forward since our earlier messages, which leads us to continue exploring. The IETF Chair has been in touch with the meeting host, which is obviously another factor in whether we can/should move. But we need to make a decision, so this message contains such information as we have at present. We understand that it is difficult to express a view about what to do in the absence of known alternatives; but we do not know what the alternatives are now, and we need urgently to make a decision, so we are sharing the incomplete information we have in the interests of transparency. Laying this out in a pro/con format: Not Singapore: -------------- If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward positive impacts include: . We might have the opportunity to establish the meeting in a venue that permits more IETF participants to be comfortable being present and engaging in a celebration of this milestone meeting, which is important to some. If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward negative impacts include: . Losing approximately $80,000 (USD) hotel agreement cancellation fee[1] . Losing up to approximately $150,000 (USD) in Singapore government incentives [2] . Re-prioritizing people time to find a new location (the IAD, Secretariat staff) who have full plates for lining up other future meetings; there’s an unknown amount of impact in terms of how that impacts *other* meetings (N.B.: some of this effort is already underway to obtain the information on possible alternatives and outline the pros/cons outlined here). . Likelihood of IETF 100 in Asia is very small — we have few prospects and it takes us months to get all the pieces aligned to get to a signed contract in Asia (Singapore took over a year). This would create additional challenges for our Asian community members (travel distance, visas). . Possible shift of dates — to be able to find a venue elsewhere that works We have some wiggle room in the point about time to find a new venue insofar as it would be easiest to use a North American site that we have used before. If we have to consider non-North American, and/or new venues where a site visit is needed, effort and cost will be higher. Note, we should only cancel the Singapore contract once we know that an alternative venue, that is acceptable to community, is ready to put under contract. The cost of cancellation ($80k now) goes up to $192k if we don’t cancel before November 2016 (i.e., a few months from now). We do have to give the hotel a reason for canceling our contract: Reasons for Cancellation of IETF 100 Meeting in Singapore, and the IAOC understands that to be: “ Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men and preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create difficulties for same-sex partners and their children; these have discouraged affected members of our community from participating at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them. Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the meeting in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.” If we stick with Singapore for IETF 100: ---------------------------------------- If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward positive impacts include: . we have a functional meeting venue set for our 3rd meeting of 2017 . meeting site research resources can remain focused on filling in the remaining gaps in the 3-4 year timeframe . we don’t have the financial hit of the cancellation fee, and possible loss of government incentives If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward negative impacts include: . we have a meeting at a location where some community members will perceive themselves as unwelcome and unsafe, unable to bring family . possibly fewer attendees than we might otherwise expect — which is a consideration for both getting work done and financial reasons (registration fees per person) The above is the practical information as we can best scope it. If you would like to provide some considered feedback on this matter, please feel free to send it to venue-selection@ietf.org . Please note that mailing list is a PUBLICLY archived “drop box” [3]. Leslie Daigle, for the IAOC. [1] The cancellation fee can be recovered if it is used as a deposit at a later meeting with those hotels in Singapore, if it is before 2020; for this discussion, it’s perhaps best to consider it gone. [2] Government business incentives are not unusual; we might obtain these in another country hosting IETF 100, but we are late to be expecting incentives and opportunities for good deals, and are unlikely to get this in a North America venue. [3] The venue-selection mailing list is not open for subscription, and it is not intended to archive dynamic conversations (i.e., don’t cc it on an e-mail discussion thread, because there will be too many addressees and your mail won’t go through). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Daigle Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC ldaigle@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Wed May 25 15:30:39 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A0E12DDCD for ; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:30:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zbu_INxNC4vr for ; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x22f.google.com (mail-vk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3A3512DDFC for ; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id c189so80867125vkb.1 for ; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:30:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uwI0/ALsmy6mc8kGt3c3mVxMPZS5JH+a5UqovfDGWw4=; b=ZV76dL6NoYbCl0/nZMosQeqcR6PEAFsRKD5xy9QEKJWAhUFo8vNZ8zyiYBxruLqffG azDuNVsDCfFleJzAlpiDfiOSaWN3v7fesf2z0/3DGQVuRGPzOGH0O7fDUghHC11FtAym Ivbgh2jR4KAPnKYBc5JOTlFJI65uB7jOVOcGke41kS96BK2YNWcm/rPlmYs3e0hZ5px/ 7y13msGt0NaNTUJ6nobAop+2oCv1vLaiMSyxX8PBTIMZVepI/KrZ+oZ64iLb7xH8EwSr Je1Y0fUm3270omTabUiKlJuIKdsPSCzNqTjtpC3GXRESvE7Gi3In2PlNEGBUMxE40QJt Lr7w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uwI0/ALsmy6mc8kGt3c3mVxMPZS5JH+a5UqovfDGWw4=; b=lYWL8V5uiklGwWKDTeIZOLZzREnnNhyhlVisI+EMvbLeLc35Aut2EMFXDpFNBdckYx Pc/ylhRjAP6TsT/+gEBxVe/6/hzcUI6uIMDO1l21CLrLpbnrzwt3UJLEXmnSUm9NIGRe P2/OtWaEPhj1Y6kTxcv4BRgPmiFg9+KQJ3jdk55zOUf8whAbtUjPokp8NR7Hc2cU23uB nOK/KGemN7gKjP2JuDMTqbvkIcT6oYlqglNmzFAJdbJMLVBXmAiO+C3JWsi+RS/IMXbb t8ucsQSkFlKEy1OGy/e+8jHBWm94fusW9tYdgBB5tFjo/bFXAWTxpvkPutMWB9Le3wuG bqhA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJMG48P1QJw/ka4xd5fZJ57hg+q9LkIwYTptcyrZUnuOofwECHos7DJYBkhs8iXtK+HbQTmJl2VKYqxAw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.129.10 with SMTP id c10mr3179788vkd.19.1464215410442; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.110.4 with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:30:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:61aa:e259:ae97:d1d1] In-Reply-To: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 08:30:10 +1000 Message-ID: From: George Michaelson To: IETF Discussion Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, IETF Announcement List Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:30:35 -0000 point of information: the $80,000 is a real loss: we paid the money it isn't coming back. the $150,000 incentive is an OPPORTUNITY COST. We don't *get* the money if we don't go. These are not the same things either in the real world, or in accounting. Please, can we avoid using the word "loss" in connection with things we don't get, as distinct from things we have to pay unavoidably? On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:08 AM, IAOC Chair wrote: > All, > > In the IAOC's previous message on this topic we stated that the IAOC beli= eved that it is possible to hold a successful meeting in Singapore, and tha= t meeting in Singapore is the best option for IETF 100. This statement was= based on several factors, including evaluation of the site based on the re= quirements and process now being updated and tracked in draft-baker-mtgvenu= e-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02. In particular, this included consulting= with the additional information sources identified in the document (specia= lty travel services, etc), and no specific issues were identified as to act= ual situation in Singapore. More detail on the information we have to hand= is provided below. > > Additional arguments have come forward since our earlier messages, which= leads us to continue exploring. The IETF Chair has been in touch with the= meeting host, which is obviously another factor in whether we can/should m= ove. But we need to make a decision, so this message contains such inform= ation as we have at present. We understand that it is difficult to express= a view about what to do in the absence of known alternatives; but we do no= t know what the alternatives are now, and we need urgently to make a decisi= on, so we are sharing the incomplete information we have in the interests o= f transparency. > > > Laying this out in a pro/con format: > > > Not Singapore: > -------------- > > If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward = positive impacts include: > > . We might have the opportunity to establish the meeting in a ven= ue that permits more IETF participants to be comfortable being present and = engaging in a celebration of this milestone meeting, which is important to = some. > > > > If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward = negative impacts include: > > . Losing approximately $80,000 (USD) hotel agreement cancellation= fee[1] > > . Losing up to approximately $150,000 (USD) in Singapore governme= nt incentives [2] > > . Re-prioritizing people time to find a new location (the IAD, Se= cretariat staff) who have full plates for lining up other future meetings; = there=E2=80=99s an unknown amount of impact in terms of how that impacts *o= ther* meetings (N.B.: some of this effort is already underway to obtain th= e information on possible alternatives and outline the pros/cons outlined h= ere). > > . Likelihood of IETF 100 in Asia is very small =E2=80=94 we have = few prospects and it takes us months to get all the pieces aligned to get t= o a signed contract in Asia (Singapore took over a year). This would creat= e additional challenges for our Asian community members (travel distance, v= isas). > > . Possible shift of dates =E2=80=94 to be able to find a venue el= sewhere that works > > We have some wiggle room in the point about time to find a new venue inso= far as it would be easiest to use a North American site that we have used b= efore. If we have to consider non-North American, and/or new venues where= a site visit is needed, effort and cost will be higher. > > Note, we should only cancel the Singapore contract once we know that an a= lternative venue, that is acceptable to community, is ready to put under co= ntract. The cost of cancellation ($80k now) goes up to $192k if we don=E2= =80=99t cancel before November 2016 (i.e., a few months from now). > > > We do have to give the hotel a reason for canceling our contract: > > Reasons for Cancellation of IETF 100 Meeting in Singapore, and the IAOC u= nderstands that to be: > > =E2=80=9C Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men an= d > preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create > difficulties for same-sex partners and their children; these have > discouraged affected members of our community from participating > at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced > others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them. > > > Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the meetin= g > in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.=E2=80=9D > > > > If we stick with Singapore for IETF 100: > ---------------------------------------- > > If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward > positive impacts include: > > . we have a functional meeting venue set for our 3rd meeting of 2= 017 > > . meeting site research resources can remain focused on filling i= n the remaining gaps in the 3-4 year timeframe > > . we don=E2=80=99t have the financial hit of the cancellation fee= , and possible loss of government incentives > > If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward ne= gative impacts include: > > . we have a meeting at a location where some community members wi= ll perceive themselves as unwelcome and unsafe, unable to bring family > > . possibly fewer attendees than we might otherwise expect =E2=80= =94 which is a consideration for both getting work done and financial reaso= ns (registration fees per person) > > > > > > > > The above is the practical information as we can best scope it. > > > If you would like to provide some considered feedback on this matter, ple= ase feel free to send it to venue-selection@ietf.org . Please note that ma= iling list is a PUBLICLY archived =E2=80=9Cdrop box=E2=80=9D [3]. > > > Leslie Daigle, for the IAOC. > > > [1] The cancellation fee can be recovered if it is used as a deposit at a= later meeting with those hotels in Singapore, if it is before 2020; for th= is discussion, it=E2=80=99s perhaps best to consider it gone. > > [2] Government business incentives are not unusual; we might obtain these= in another country hosting IETF 100, but we are late to be expecting incen= tives and opportunities for good deals, and are unlikely to get this in a N= orth America venue. > > [3] The venue-selection mailing list is not open for subscription, and it= is not intended to archive dynamic conversations (i.e., don=E2=80=99t cc i= t on an e-mail discussion thread, because there will be too many addressees= and your mail won=E2=80=99t go through). > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Leslie Daigle > Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC > ldaigle@thinkingcat.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > From nobody Wed May 25 16:09:50 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3CE12D61E; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:09:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YGnCh99t01Fq; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x22b.google.com (mail-yw0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 696D112D52A; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id o16so61177858ywd.2; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:09:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BSckBqS/7R5dNusMl6KsYwbWSTxke1/8+17wfNMnOkY=; b=AT0XYW12gfGebeTMJFSB4RdxDk8BuNaEHg8duqsfAnJLYeZeJzbjwwESj5XyFSDazi iPtt9H6JuwZW/hZbnrBva3Yx7xhujSIPt89r8L1u3qivFwdyAS8RgLhy6EsNXPfqSqNc 5DEIWnMbnZ3zyPgV5VLLFzP5AyDqUG/3lhtKvtgfHo+6cR+6GHmxKdFCK6hr1Ka6J/6g ZO87HEcC7P3Viq51B20r3NmJYNdZraeS1PUE19JXRbwvzc7BjYUPLLesRBCHDaynecT7 swlekrSSzJDGqWYMRpRCkcXPMXgcmhkY+Ut5mYj9O8TU8D5LZVvMGXEpiebk3FNfeQip JVzg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BSckBqS/7R5dNusMl6KsYwbWSTxke1/8+17wfNMnOkY=; b=W5oFkNOP1eEbFAAUtKTTC8aO6cFFuTyxckQ6gNzwTuYyU8IIh2z4rBaQY+lNOyu8V0 W1UTjYkPN93H5+kOdQcctoIupZdKY+5hBshWGD9oX/IwHG2SWN97Z2VCiMLgq+QcLPpI b8CBassQvw+BWZ4AB9sS9Dj8oUsMvd5nPDhUYp0YZ7u2T5QqADX3hRIciXpDdkZc5ZIx ajcC1X4F9F7O99sxFSroJ8kizmJsf2Ht2wN0CV1ucsCPWXasqbGGAgfZMK60nyz7hqCL D5qTtyh3ud5wcZFwdLJ7N9/T5sZ97TAkCwKAPizOHYE2Qd7c4dvRC6kdNoW77ZgRTF+S wJdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKCQFb2eoNCPgwhl3VDsIKkiD5Dm38XdBlW6kV20dFWpS1mH/oBcSf2EjEpITE8KQ== X-Received: by 10.13.225.207 with SMTP id k198mr4135389ywe.52.1464217779335; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from margarets-air-3.home (pool-72-74-19-153.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [72.74.19.153]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r135sm731829ywg.29.2016.05.25.16.09.38 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 25 May 2016 16:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Margaret Cullen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Margaret Cullen In-Reply-To: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:09:37 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5DCBE505-C6A5-47D6-84DB-0B5887A80FDA@gmail.com> References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, IETF Announcement List Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 23:09:41 -0000 I understand that this is a very difficult situation, but I think you = have left something important out of your list of pros and cons. If we = cancel the Singapore meeting, we get to say _this_ to the Singapore = government, who wants us to meet there enough that they have offered us = $150K in incentives for us to come there: > =E2=80=9C Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men = and > preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create > difficulties for same-sex partners and their children; these have > discouraged affected members of our community from participating > at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced > others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them. >=20 >=20 > Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the = meeting > in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.=E2=80=9D If, instead, we hold this milestone meeting in Singapore despite the = fact that these issues have been raised, we are sending the message that = we consider basic human rights violations to be no more of a = disincentive to visiting a particular venue than visa issues, cost = considerations, or other items that have been raised in this discussion = as examples of why =E2=80=9Cno venue is perfect=E2=80=9D. Margaret From nobody Thu May 26 02:26:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3ED812D54B; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:26:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jQuUnOrpNGrM; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from incoming.kjsl.com (inbound02.kjsl.com [IPv6:2001:1868:2002::144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F16BB12B076; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([65.50.211.142]) by ironport02.kjsl.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 May 2016 09:26:29 +0000 Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BFF9CC51; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:26:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=YPBwNWpLkcEcl5L2haUzxHRZLBw=; b= CS3ercA4oHSN+tC629eq14tEG5nclvMzx2x8mQylK9WJOexZHUWlv/V30MgbWzA3 lhlbiR1UQ0iSA829bs1hmzNPCqqcp0BWl0miXiu2IEsGAIBpSfqpCLT7JA1RGEho xEzLbD05b4+1XR2SXRoUJYR3sjfBhVHohQKHUZBPREU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=RWUsNcXGIdgGfNLGzh77Cqu14T sQ1LKTWv+ib+vGfKsXyPunSNNYN1/bPrSStSGGFKF8n6lcnZCCRVc6vZm4jbHLQe yvLFw/9Nx4qGzH/TzV1s2eeFKcrpTm8bnqqHRr6UN+g1czpCWZ/dud7+0PW9uAGc YlB+jF4JD7O3B+uv8= Received: from h.hanazo.no (cm-84.213.17.83.getinternet.no [84.213.17.83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99FF99CC4E; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2280171B4BD; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:26:23 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F40C82BE-84EB-4DE7-A92A-890EBFF04CF2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2 From: otroan@employees.org In-Reply-To: <5DCBE505-C6A5-47D6-84DB-0B5887A80FDA@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 11:26:20 +0200 Message-Id: References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5DCBE505-C6A5-47D6-84DB-0B5887A80FDA@gmail.com> To: IETF Discussion X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, Margaret Cullen , IETF Announcement List Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 09:26:35 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F40C82BE-84EB-4DE7-A92A-890EBFF04CF2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > I understand that this is a very difficult situation, but I think you = have left something important out of your list of pros and cons. If we = cancel the Singapore meeting, we get to say _this_ to the Singapore = government, who wants us to meet there enough that they have offered us = $150K in incentives for us to come there: >=20 >> =E2=80=9C Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between = men and >> preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create >> difficulties for same-sex partners and their children; these have >> discouraged affected members of our community from participating >> at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced >> others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them. >>=20 >>=20 >> Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the = meeting >> in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.=E2=80=9D >=20 > If, instead, we hold this milestone meeting in Singapore despite the = fact that these issues have been raised, we are sending the message that = we consider basic human rights violations to be no more of a = disincentive to visiting a particular venue than visa issues, cost = considerations, or other items that have been raised in this discussion = as examples of why =E2=80=9Cno venue is perfect=E2=80=9D. If we were to go down this path, principled as it might be, is there = anywhere we can meet physically at all? = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11381744/How-the-world-violates-= human-rights-country-by-country.html I can't think of many countries that aren't violating basic human rights = in some way or the other... Ole --Apple-Mail=_F40C82BE-84EB-4DE7-A92A-890EBFF04CF2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJXRsE/AAoJED4aXnjSQuKW3IUH/jKKr7o1XL5Bub0ezNhhe3dj JBA5Wu1q0KxSwriNhp8ojh4QpvClVSIlS8eYIvKqzw3y1B19QYi4T87Abj88q/DA OgA2f/q+z3NhT3oMUnnaL1zyY7Qt4oppLm9LC4gzyxC2Gf5grBZ6apQ5hujlziLY 1t5PiFf3CzDzAvXTrSEvot3+5RJeJAgLWx146vNgcdchkxtIqw/hA1FzE63zTjg4 5b7qI9X8Gng61fMQY8CfJHxJZwTQYXlSqGSyaY630TfMArcG/HPdldYYDQyNVxJz Phni0G42q/r/E257l58zj7zFsE02rVos7cum64rNMy0VdnG5BzrCbfS9AX9tmGw= =vH9w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_F40C82BE-84EB-4DE7-A92A-890EBFF04CF2-- From nobody Thu May 26 06:40:53 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5EC12D64C; Thu, 26 May 2016 06:40:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SmejBO5vSsb7; Thu, 26 May 2016 06:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2849112D643; Thu, 26 May 2016 06:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300B5200A5; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:47:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0E7638BE; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:40:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: ietf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 13:40:51 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain I can not keep up with the thread(s) anymore. I'm sure that many didn't follow at all. Please: we need some summary to be blogged. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEVAwUBV0b824CLcPvd0N1lAQIKLAf8C4ZjhCGninDAv4+lVinyUZaAd9KJM3cL 09cj7LDjC6O4kE7nBIZInT35iJHqwRY3AqWqMkqPKhIPQSnZ+/j66iyycjPgkj28 770feyM05Tb77SmyogGnN1BtSLqx0E5cI8PBPKi8uwC5V9FiydXSGKvSe+UApH/i IQrxTnwzSEPOCtbocm/C5JFKHlGnQnkyomy++JxaPtAhk4ccq9JmMLBrCGYsBIV4 t35eFp/fk9XwWGnnTFOdYK7Wi9hcOciER3Q61VVO4wdR3+/INsd9QYuyKBYuFsr6 2XXuGOx7ISLUnR6V0HvjLnOTHlmzCN+YuFc7i4SVyghJlPEKNe2MjA== =NwkL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Thu May 26 09:15:43 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80FF112D753 for ; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:15:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.92 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S8I_tIx4SC1z for ; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp97.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp97.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD95712D74C for ; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp21.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp21.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 45010380403; Thu, 26 May 2016 12:15:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: bgreene@senki.org Received: by smtp21.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: bgreene-AT-senki.org) with ESMTPSA id E704438041E; Thu, 26 May 2016 12:15:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: bgreene@senki.org Received: from [172.16.1.105] (c-73-92-124-43.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.92.124.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.5.4); Thu, 26 May 2016 12:15:25 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Barry Raveendran Greene In-Reply-To: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 09:15:28 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: "Ietf@Ietf. Org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, IETF Announcement List Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:15:39 -0000 If this is being used as the justification, then South Korea must also = be changed. Same problem.=20 > On May 25, 2016, at 3:08 PM, IAOC Chair wrote: >=20 > Reasons for Cancellation of IETF 100 Meeting in Singapore, and the = IAOC understands that to be: >=20 > =E2=80=9C Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men = and > preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create > difficulties for same-sex partners and their children; these have > discouraged affected members of our community from participating > at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced > others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them. >=20 >=20 > Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the = meeting > in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.=E2=80=9D From nobody Thu May 26 11:44:13 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785D212D84F; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:44:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F-nGHWpQLDug; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x231.google.com (mail-yw0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3010612D85D; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x231.google.com with SMTP id x189so85002182ywe.3; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:44:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ChZ28vVjBln6dh3pYJ4WMin7GpV56/dZruaspCgKH/Y=; b=jlPgQUso/NKi5m6P8k7mM+DTdB/ovUXzSEVTZt/hr6djByQecy5e1htxS/ZBnJvS9b 38vbomuTAq+aS9ZoQ8gRazhnYldc6vFUPmetbBky5XqVkAgOVdflzkkLnJ5n+1OxJswu DbYnYalpzms0uWbehLR3+AfOVUOfm349LWzmOyJ1qTEgH5iJW/wxFHBmLlBczffjI4VJ /CQMCnq/3H5M7uJTN6yflEzGa+fFpFxVP559cfkIJcpLg8FhG8Uu2bkuKCuzIZRA+TJz kFBOLA4r1mFP9lbC28eT/+hi7DdWD1eQSHkKud6KOooz3lawXubbnBReSTS835zK0ijw zOrQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ChZ28vVjBln6dh3pYJ4WMin7GpV56/dZruaspCgKH/Y=; b=d1OublHoJIGMQ5Vofk/AKt2YNLh0rm0kfQvNWiu3tFFW8ybc7eVqveOagwmdl7YVFG nMF6z8rg4LCuHe27wxqjpQutnZlvCDe7pe62bdfDdZynY/f/9ROQV+xYpwikVe6yDaAi rdMqxGnzahyWLISSXHQ6ZbV7lp5SLFWIMrR5L94SQ9dkrtOh4X23YDscBpa/Th7y7UX1 F71mHqIXi0xHqwIgExKLfaUVMHbTr7+M94bgx0oQ05koyI1t8Ecpb8ft9Vh897Ik722R C7q+RPigRvRSWVMam+cSoke9LlR93o+YvnVp5bysGdt5KBHO3LmFY9wmuOAFki5Qipu2 J/gw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIyKGSrVzscrX5GX8Zxg5KgI5/ADyezKfkoJvRHnp0S4WbEIPF1nTLB7SYfDJrK7g== X-Received: by 10.13.207.129 with SMTP id r123mr7484264ywd.274.1464288245234; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from margarets-air-3.home (pool-72-74-19-153.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [72.74.19.153]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j7sm3116130ywg.31.2016.05.26.11.44.03 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 26 May 2016 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Margaret Cullen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Margaret Cullen In-Reply-To: <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:44:02 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> To: "Fred Baker (fred)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" , Barry Raveendran Greene , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 18:44:09 -0000 Hi Fred, > On May 26, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > = http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodomy-= a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/ indicates that 12 states have = anti-sodomy laws on the books, including Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, = Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South = Carolina, Texas and Utah. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those laws are unconstitutional. The = fact that states have not cleared them off the books is annoying, but = does not mean that they are currently enforced or enforceable. As far as I know, the law in Singapore is still in force. According to = videos sent by one of the posters here, their Parliament considered = rescinding the law bout 10 years ago, and decided not to rescind it. =20 > We have met three times in Texas, three times in Florida, and once in = Utah. We have had no incident that I became aware of. Did any IETF participant claim, in advance or since, that it wouldn=E2=80=99= t be safe for them to travel to those locations? >=20 > Which doesn't say that Ted is wrong, but it says that his information = is dated. I have known Ted Hardie for almost two decades, and while we don=E2=80=99t= always agree, I have never known him to be careless, alarmist or = paranoid. Ted cares deeply about the IETF and the Internet, and I = don=E2=80=99t believe he would raise an issue like this to gain = attention or obstruct our work. So, when Ted says that it might be = unsafe for him to travel to Singapore with his family, I believe that = there are rational reasons for him to think so. > If we can't go to Singapore, I don't see how we go back to Texas, = Utah, Florida, important parts of Africa, or the Arab world. And, oh = yes, much of Eastern Asia. To me, that's the crux of the issue. I = respect Ted, Melinda, and the many others that are LGBT and working in = the IETF. However, the issue has, in my opinion, become far more = political/emotional than fact-based. I'd like us to make sure we have = the right guidelines in venue selection that focus on having successful = meetings, and remote participation capabilities that will enable someone = that chooses to attend that way to do so productively. I hope we would not go to most of the Arab world, anyway, because of the = status of women in those countries. I would not be willing to travel to = a country where women cannot vote, cannot own property, cannot drive, = etc. So, if the IETF were to go to one of those countries, I would not = attend. I would also think less of the IETF and it=E2=80=99s commitment = to gender diversity. (BTW, I think it is fine for women to _choose_ to = abide by religious or cultural restrictions =E2=80=94 I object to laws = that require them to do so.) You seem to be advocating for an IETF that meets all over the world, = while people who are unwilling to travel to those places for reasons of = safety or ethics would stay home and participate remotely. While there = might be some (as yet unquantified, see below) advantage to that = approach, it would have the _hugely unfortunate effect_ that the most = privileged people in the world (rich, white, U.S./European, straight = men) might be the only ones who are willing/able to attend every meeting = in person. Given that our leadership selection process depends on = in-person attendance, both as a way to select nomcom members and as a = requirement for leadership positions, that would run counter to our = efforts to make the IETF a more diverse organization across many lines. Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl, the meeting = in Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular attendees, and = this made it harder to get work done, IMO. Attendance numbers (and = therefore registration fees) were also down. What are the benefits that = offset those costs? Does having one meeting in a country actually = result in an increase in meaningful, ongoing participation from people = in that country? Has anyone checked how many first-time attendees from = a given location send mail to our mailing lists more than six months = later, attend future meetings (in person or remotely) and/or author = documents? If so, could someone publish the results of these studies? This is obviously a very complicated issue. The IETF has a choice to = make about what sort of organization it wants to be, and there are = rational viewpoints on both sides of this issue. I don=E2=80=99t think = we will resolve this issue, though, if we keep throwing up strawmen = (like being unable to meet in Texas), instead of trying to understand = the more subtle effects of the choices we are making in these = situations. No one person can have a diverse perspective, and I can=E2=80=99t claim = to speak for everyone in the IETF about these sorts of issues any more = than you can. Probably the best way for the IETF to make good, = carefully researched and highly responsive decisions in this area would = be to have an IAOC that is as diverse as possible, along as many = different lines as possible. I will send that suggestion as input to = the new nomcom when it has formed. Margaret From nobody Thu May 26 13:22:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E6E12D8DB; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:22:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PPkBE88ZxYDk; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:22:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x236.google.com (mail-yw0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8365012B069; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:22:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x236.google.com with SMTP id o16so87539425ywd.2; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:22:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=w/HhRLBK7QYFpSVfpAR7Rc3aETEgUlcmQ3n+d8+yTxQ=; b=RAyUUzWumGFtTdv/wyEVW9FZKbE7FGrqOwCzemWNcMm2MISvS+GgBjgI/RRPN0svXX Y8kpsuDLDpvDNKpSdr2s212BY9c+GToV1UR6woKhHym2wtiDlVeOOw6lmHg99abJhGIP O/JLE8FB9qg/3OqzZ3lSMDSqeF932iA9ajwypFv/ZKWpS6oI6AXt81kp3KpgCRz/2PDi q47YPWB93W+nDCEAasi1AodC2ssEenMy3lt3U++P8a5Ef+ZfP4lkpV4zNkN2rFDavnRs Mo2AJ1NAWaZwqwAC3PiLZ9O7iFs2miN7Cn4a8r31pI1/1Hpc4iHGjT2Fu2wIGiTRa2hH 7qFA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=w/HhRLBK7QYFpSVfpAR7Rc3aETEgUlcmQ3n+d8+yTxQ=; b=imigIDqzfQKJt1nOX2uIsT1PWv8WS4r80oZ+rMHxsSlLyR+TX36ARk6lD91vZOpqia AbV/CkSFLxdMkZPuZnT2vrx4axla5x3wtphOBFf1RQmta/dDbL3oH8JBQIYhHzq0HZ50 tJMY9zUDtlHk3dfDuIWB01cyJt2qlrMurezFH/5lYzd0kctRLTO9meOr0MmAQc1M+b6d 6z/wIautg036MJ5JUje6N8cK23K+JzzwJmqoER5vD7/pmTIQOmy1XdO0385SZvClC2NY +64I+QTTo32T5EyzBld9QqBvN0BHFEPpcGO9kIoo2+GGYTNCs0LEXo6PkXODS8WfjTJ7 JbKA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJdjp6f2D2iQkxj2vFIv7XgEAIciTLyPGtlCGYgqwyloJpjHuaxlbkVCJ9LOKiMbA== X-Received: by 10.37.52.75 with SMTP id b72mr6512104yba.118.1464294121720; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from margarets-air-3.home (pool-72-74-19-153.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [72.74.19.153]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y131sm3372376ywg.18.2016.05.26.13.22.00 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 26 May 2016 13:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Margaret Cullen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Margaret Cullen In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:21:59 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6771A81D-EBE9-4A88-B7BA-E1CE9778C1BF@gmail.com> References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> To: Keith Moore X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 20:22:05 -0000 > On May 26, 2016, at 4:01 PM, Keith Moore = wrote: >=20 > Right, but should IETF need to hire lawyers in each country in order = to get an expert opinion about whether members of each of an enumerated = set of groups can legally be harassed when attending a meeting there, = and about the likelihood of that happening? What about the IAOC writing to the IETF list and/or recent attendees = when they are considering going to a new country, asking if anyone has = any feedback on the idea? And then considering that feedback _before_ = making a final decision, signing a contract, etc? It seems to me that if this issue had been raised before the IAOC had = made a non-refundable $80K deposit and had negotiated $150K in benefits = from the Singapore government, there would have been a lot more latitude = for choosing a different location. Margaret From nobody Thu May 26 14:01:37 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059EA12D9B5 for ; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:01:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.co.uk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Mn6vVnRNo-m for ; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm5-vm9.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com (nm5-vm9.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com [212.82.96.116]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 437B912D9D2 for ; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:01:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s2048; t=1464296490; bh=DDyl/Z76OMs/Q6pA25uXxzyQu23sKAxlI6y1umI7u9E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=BI1Wcx6XNVHUnJMrr6q84Dn5RO0vtxbsRJgVKECp7ILKrkiJseUjBeO7SU/y52q2ZDANnX9iKlZLIQN1L3q+6CNpPod/ejqwtIz0T07URPY8powwEQ76Mw6isgm59utekfu6NyyWWH70UyXIMcyCNpcXnFMFHmSPzgMBwXYYYDCCV8OPnpKtMCWvNVJ7xDTI24hn1940Rkcx1jPs0jme8QdMMPHRWsk+KN1jlhhjrBngj9OIloaGQBD/VRdF1c9jwEdemxo17qlWyPaDz30QSKn4SW2Ed44kzgtlQbZrttkVdzR65C9hwSnHEyRcgjOyoUUf8S8R7225vcogSO2v4g== Received: from [212.82.98.52] by nm5.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2016 21:01:30 -0000 Received: from [212.82.98.94] by tm5.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2016 21:01:30 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1031.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2016 21:01:30 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 692428.35909.bm@omp1031.mail.ir2.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: gR4.jiUVM1lG8Zu4dL4zhFYd1yIUXY.bwKKnzpuc3ZElRGtfHbu15TSOzuIOQ7S lxnKBOxHLVnzwoRqgayPMdYNAS.APtw3.GAsewpP2WDDfhb3wkNZFukvb6Pns20euLlTJNRf0PPp ffj_MIRCgVWTk3PrGOcu543.o5fMzLYIm0BacWNf0HJbEeQV1bsazP.z.30VbSeiYQAHPhB5yN5j 4zkn7iTE_Km5Sg1fxNfWeJqwakEBY6bKCM7gv.OtN__IAFNc9MyeCf5bRgtG2gRLqDde0iakjG1U 5mOYqhK5Fi5OFu4ELTxDyqllIsIRKzxescdPjo8ogc_IIiwPNVUFlpkvrnKaKfiRgzuujEP_pExU gYat8gzxsCU67CRR6D8quSkRokXoTKT0qOkHtiOTBH.xuqq79NnA_wZEhtkLtSf8xDlyh3DVp9xm 6YDfwBeBWFF9rbfyKSdnkf9dCXqSkmd3_TjbEymqofZQtGQES5wJTRZlB1fSsm.Wqj1NzSIjC1kT upKCch1x7FislrTzqHRCbhmE- Received: from jws11114.mail.ir2.yahoo.com by sendmailws169.mail.ir2.yahoo.com; Thu, 26 May 2016 21:01:30 +0000; 1464296490.033 Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:01:14 +0000 (UTC) From: Lloyd Wood To: Keith Moore , Margaret Cullen , Christer Holmberg Message-ID: <1880162818.42138.1464296474767.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37FF1835@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37FF1835@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_42137_620388147.1464296474763" Archived-At: Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:01:35 -0000 ------=_Part_42137_620388147.1464296474763 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px = #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:whi= te !important; } this was still a concern for students visiting singapore = in the early 90s. Lloyd Woodlloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk On Friday, May 27, 2016, 6:07 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: Hi, >It's a serious question, and I don't know the answer.=C2=A0 Several years = ago a friend of mine was told by a >member of a country's embassy staff tha= t it would not be a good idea for him to visit there - because >of his appe= arance.=C2=A0 He wore his hair long and had a lot of facial hair.=20 A long time ago, it was not allowed for men with long hair to enter Singapo= re. But, that law was removed in the 70's (if I remember correctly), as the= hippie movement was fading away. Regards, Christer > On May 26, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Margaret Cullen wrot= e: >=20 > Hi Fred, >=20 >> On May 26, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodom= y-a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/ indicates that 12 states have anti-s= odomy laws on the books, including Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kans= as, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas = and Utah. >=20 > The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those laws are unconstitutional.=C2=A0 = The fact that states have not cleared them off the books is annoying, but d= oes not mean that they are currently enforced or enforceable. >=20 > As far as I know, the law in Singapore is still in force.=C2=A0 According= to videos sent by one of the posters here, their Parliament considered res= cinding the law bout 10 years ago, and decided not to rescind it.=C2=A0=20 >=20 >> We have met three times in Texas, three times in Florida, and once in Ut= ah. We have had no incident that I became aware of. >=20 > Did any IETF participant claim, in advance or since, that it wouldn=E2=80= =99t be safe for them to travel to those locations? >>=20 >> Which doesn't say that Ted is wrong, but it says that his information is= dated. >=20 >=20 > I have known Ted Hardie for almost two decades, and while we don=E2=80=99= t always agree, I have never known him to be careless, alarmist or paranoid= .=C2=A0 Ted cares deeply about the IETF and the Internet, and I don=E2=80= =99t believe he would raise an issue like this to gain attention or obstruc= t our work.=C2=A0 So, when Ted says that it might be unsafe for him to trav= el to Singapore with his family, I believe that there are rational reasons = for him to think so. >=20 >> If we can't go to Singapore, I don't see how we go back to Texas, Utah, = Florida, important parts of Africa, or the Arab world. And, oh yes, much of= Eastern Asia. To me, that's the crux of the issue. I respect Ted, Melinda,= and the many others that are LGBT and working in the IETF. However, the is= sue has, in my opinion, become far more political/emotional than fact-based= . I'd like us to make sure we have the right guidelines in venue selection = that focus on having successful meetings, and remote participation capabili= ties that will enable someone that chooses to attend that way to do so prod= uctively. >=20 > I hope we would not go to most of the Arab world, anyway, because of the = status of women in those countries.=C2=A0 I would not be willing to travel = to a country where women cannot vote, cannot own property, cannot drive, et= c.=C2=A0 So, if the IETF were to go to one of those countries, I would not = attend.=C2=A0 I would also think less of the IETF and it=E2=80=99s commitme= nt to gender diversity. (BTW, I think it is fine for women to _choose_ to a= bide by religious or cultural restrictions =E2=80=94 I object to laws that = require them to do so.) >=20 > You seem to be advocating for an IETF that meets all over the world, whil= e people who are unwilling to travel to those places for reasons of safety = or ethics would stay home and participate remotely.=C2=A0 While there might= be some (as yet unquantified, see below) advantage to that approach, it wo= uld have the _hugely unfortunate effect_ that the most privileged people in= the world (rich, white, U.S./European, straight men) might be the only one= s who are willing/able to attend every meeting in person.=C2=A0 Given that = our leadership selection process depends on in-person attendance, both as a= way to select nomcom members and as a requirement for leadership positions= , that would run counter to our efforts to make the IETF a more diverse org= anization across many lines. >=20 > Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl, the meeting = in Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular attendees, and this m= ade it harder to get work done, IMO.=C2=A0 Attendance numbers (and therefor= e registration fees) were also down.=C2=A0 What are the benefits that offse= t those costs?=C2=A0 Does having one meeting in a country actually result i= n an increase in meaningful, ongoing participation from people in that coun= try?=C2=A0 Has anyone checked how many first-time attendees from a given lo= cation send mail to our mailing lists more than six months later, attend fu= ture meetings (in person or remotely) and/or author documents?=C2=A0 If so,= could someone publish the results of these studies? >=20 > This is obviously a very complicated issue.=C2=A0 The IETF has a choice t= o make about what sort of organization it wants to be, and there are ration= al viewpoints on both sides of this issue.=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t think we w= ill resolve this issue, though, if we keep throwing up strawmen (like being= unable to meet in Texas), instead of trying to understand the more subtle = effects of the choices we are making in these situations. >=20 > No one person can have a diverse perspective, and I can=E2=80=99t claim t= o speak for everyone in the IETF about these sorts of issues any more than = you can.=C2=A0 Probably the best way for the IETF to make good, carefully r= esearched and highly responsive decisions in this area would be to have an = IAOC that is as diverse as possible, along as many different lines as possi= ble.=C2=A0 I will send that suggestion as input to the new nomcom when it h= as formed. >=20 > Margaret >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Recentattendees mailing list > Recentattendees@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees =20 ------=_Part_42137_620388147.1464296474763 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable this was still a concern for students visiting singapore in= the early 90s.


Lloyd Wood
lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk

<= p class=3D"yahoo-quoted-begin" style=3D"font-size: 15px; color: #715FFA; pa= dding-top: 15px; margin-top: 0">On Friday, May 27, 2016, 6:07 AM, Christer = Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

Hi,

>It's a serious questi= on, and I don't know the answer.  Several years ago a friend of mine w= as told by a >member of a country's embassy staff that it would not be a= good idea for him to visit there - because >of his appearance.  He= wore his hair long and had a lot of facial hair.

A long time ago, it was not allowed for men with long hair to = enter Singapore. But, that law was removed in the 70's (if I remember corre= ctly), as the hippie movement was fading away.

Regards,

Christer




> On May 26, 2016, at 2:= 44 PM, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com> wrote:<= br clear=3D"none">>
> Hi Fred,
&= gt;
>> On May 26, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Fred Baker (fr= ed) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodomy-= a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/ indicates that 12 states have anti= -sodomy laws on the books, including Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Ka= nsas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texa= s and Utah.
>
> The U.S. Supreme= Court ruled that those laws are unconstitutional.  The fact that stat= es have not cleared them off the books is annoying, but does not mean that = they are currently enforced or enforceable.
>
> As far as I know, the law in Singapore is still in force.&n= bsp; According to videos sent by one of the posters here, their Parliament = considered rescinding the law bout 10 years ago, and decided not to rescind= it. 
>
>> We have met = three times in Texas, three times in Florida, and once in Utah. We have had= no incident that I became aware of.
>
> Did any IETF participant claim, in advance or since, that it would= n=E2=80=99t be safe for them to travel to those locations?
>>
>> Which doesn't say that Ted is wrong,= but it says that his information is dated.
>
>
> I have known Ted Hardie for almost = two decades, and while we don=E2=80=99t always agree, I have never known hi= m to be careless, alarmist or paranoid.  Ted cares deeply about the IE= TF and the Internet, and I don=E2=80=99t believe he would raise an issue li= ke this to gain attention or obstruct our work.  So, when Ted says tha= t it might be unsafe for him to travel to Singapore with his family, I beli= eve that there are rational reasons for him to think so.
= >
>> If we can't go to Singapore, I don't see h= ow we go back to Texas, Utah, Florida, important parts of Africa, or the Ar= ab world. And, oh yes, much of Eastern Asia. To me, that's the crux of the = issue. I respect Ted, Melinda, and the many others that are LGBT and workin= g in the IETF. However, the issue has, in my opinion, become far more polit= ical/emotional than fact-based. I'd like us to make sure we have the right = guidelines in venue selection that focus on having successful meetings, and= remote participation capabilities that will enable someone that chooses to= attend that way to do so productively.
>
> I hope we would not go to most of the Arab world, anyway, becau= se of the status of women in those countries.  I would not be willing = to travel to a country where women cannot vote, cannot own property, cannot= drive, etc.  So, if the IETF were to go to one of those countries, I = would not attend.  I would also think less of the IETF and it=E2=80=99= s commitment to gender diversity. (BTW, I think it is fine for women to _ch= oose_ to abide by religious or cultural restrictions =E2=80=94 I object to = laws that require them to do so.)
>
> You seem to be advocating for an IETF that meets all over the world, = while people who are unwilling to travel to those places for reasons of saf= ety or ethics would stay home and participate remotely.  While there m= ight be some (as yet unquantified, see below) advantage to that approach, i= t would have the _hugely unfortunate effect_ that the most privileged peopl= e in the world (rich, white, U.S./European, straight men) might be the only= ones who are willing/able to attend every meeting in person.  Given t= hat our leadership selection process depends on in-person attendance, both = as a way to select nomcom members and as a requirement for leadership posit= ions, that would run counter to our efforts to make the IETF a more diverse= organization across many lines.
>
= > Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl, the meeti= ng in Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular attendees, and thi= s made it harder to get work done, IMO.  Attendance numbers (and there= fore registration fees) were also down.  What are the benefits that of= fset those costs?  Does having one meeting in a country actually resul= t in an increase in meaningful, ongoing participation from people in that c= ountry?  Has anyone checked how many first-time attendees from a given= location send mail to our mailing lists more than six months later, attend= future meetings (in person or remotely) and/or author documents?  If = so, could someone publish the results of these studies?
&= gt;
> This is obviously a very complicated issue.&nbs= p; The IETF has a choice to make about what sort of organization it wants t= o be, and there are rational viewpoints on both sides of this issue.  = I don=E2=80=99t think we will resolve this issue, though, if we keep throwi= ng up strawmen (like being unable to meet in Texas), instead of trying to u= nderstand the more subtle effects of the choices we are making in these sit= uations.
>
> No one person can h= ave a diverse perspective, and I can=E2=80=99t claim to speak for everyone = in the IETF about these sorts of issues any more than you can.  Probab= ly the best way for the IETF to make good, carefully researched and highly = responsive decisions in this area would be to have an IAOC that is as diver= se as possible, along as many different lines as possible.  I will sen= d that suggestion as input to the new nomcom when it has formed.
>
> Margaret
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Recentattendees mailing list
> Recentattendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees

------=_Part_42137_620388147.1464296474763-- From nobody Thu May 26 14:12:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB4F312D0EA; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:12:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.625 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gxbI03G5hMFt; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:12:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rubbermaid-out.opus1.com (rubbermaid-out.opus1.com [192.245.12.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57ED512D0E7; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:12:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from skipper.opus1.com ([192.245.12.223]) by rubbermaid-out.opus1.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 26 May 2016 14:12:51 -0700 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_bSH34ycNRwCQ7SL0mzzOYA)" Received: from [192.168.254.3] (unknown [134.255.164.4]) by skipper.opus1.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.34.0 64bit (built Oct 14 2014)) with ESMTPSA id <0O7S0052QYWU0800@skipper.opus1.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:12:50 -0700 (MST) From: Joel Snyder X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13F69) In-reply-to: <1880162818.42138.1464296474767.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 23:12:25 +0200 Message-id: <80D305EA-3A1A-4188-8C3A-E693E39118BA@opus1.com> References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37FF1835@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <1880162818.42138.1464296474767.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> To: Lloyd Wood Archived-At: Cc: "Ietf@Ietf. Org" , Margaret Cullen , "recentattendees@ietf.org" , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , Christer Holmberg , Keith Moore Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:12:54 -0000 --Boundary_(ID_bSH34ycNRwCQ7SL0mzzOYA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Without suggesting that anecdotal evidence is not data, I'll assert that I p= ersonally traveled to Singapore at least a dozen times in the 90s with long h= air, an unruly beard, and a relaxed attitude about how to behave---always wi= thout incident. The only bad experience I can claim involved an attempt to t= ransport durian on the subway, in which I was in the wrong but had no idea i= t was illegal.=20 jms --- Joel M Snyder - Opus One - jms@Opus1.COM Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse style, grammar, and typos.=20 Brevity is not intended to be brusque.=20 > On May 26, 2016, at 23:01, Lloyd Wood wrote: >=20 > this was still a concern for students visiting singapore in the early 90s.= >=20 >=20 > Lloyd Wood > lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk >=20 > On Friday, May 27, 2016, 6:07 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > >It's a serious question, and I don't know the answer. Several years ago a= friend of mine was told by a >member of a country's embassy staff that it w= ould not be a good idea for him to visit there - because >of his appearance.= He wore his hair long and had a lot of facial hair.=20 >=20 > A long time ago, it was not allowed for men with long hair to enter Singap= ore. But, that law was removed in the 70's (if I remember correctly), as the= hippie movement was fading away. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Christer >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > On May 26, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Margaret Cullen wro= te: > >=20 > > Hi Fred, > >=20 > >> On May 26, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodo= my-a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/ indicates that 12 states have anti-s= odomy laws on the books, including Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansa= s, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas an= d Utah. > >=20 > > The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those laws are unconstitutional. The f= act that states have not cleared them off the books is annoying, but does no= t mean that they are currently enforced or enforceable. > >=20 > > As far as I know, the law in Singapore is still in force. According to v= ideos sent by one of the posters here, their Parliament considered rescindin= g the law bout 10 years ago, and decided not to rescind it. =20 > >=20 > >> We have met three times in Texas, three times in Florida, and once in U= tah. We have had no incident that I became aware of. > >=20 > > Did any IETF participant claim, in advance or since, that it wouldn=E2=80= =99t be safe for them to travel to those locations? > >>=20 > >> Which doesn't say that Ted is wrong, but it says that his information i= s dated. > >=20 > >=20 > > I have known Ted Hardie for almost two decades, and while we don=E2=80=99= t always agree, I have never known him to be careless, alarmist or paranoid.= Ted cares deeply about the IETF and the Internet, and I don=E2=80=99t beli= eve he would raise an issue like this to gain attention or obstruct our work= . So, when Ted says that it might be unsafe for him to travel to Singapore w= ith his family, I believe that there are rational reasons for him to think s= o. > >=20 > >> If we can't go to Singapore, I don't see how we go back to Texas, Utah,= Florida, important parts of Africa, or the Arab world. And, oh yes, much of= Eastern Asia. To me, that's the crux of the issue. I respect Ted, Melinda, a= nd the many others that are LGBT and working in the IETF. However, the issue= has, in my opinion, become far more political/emotional than fact-based. I'= d like us to make sure we have the right guidelines in venue selection that f= ocus on having successful meetings, and remote participation capabilities th= at will enable someone that chooses to attend that way to do so productively= . > >=20 > > I hope we would not go to most of the Arab world, anyway, because of the= status of women in those countries. I would not be willing to travel to a c= ountry where women cannot vote, cannot own property, cannot drive, etc. So,= if the IETF were to go to one of those countries, I would not attend. I wo= uld also think less of the IETF and it=E2=80=99s commitment to gender divers= ity. (BTW, I think it is fine for women to _choose_ to abide by religious or= cultural restrictions =E2=80=94 I object to laws that require them to do so= .) > >=20 > > You seem to be advocating for an IETF that meets all over the world, whi= le people who are unwilling to travel to those places for reasons of safety o= r ethics would stay home and participate remotely. While there might be som= e (as yet unquantified, see below) advantage to that approach, it would have= the _hugely unfortunate effect_ that the most privileged people in the worl= d (rich, white, U.S./European, straight men) might be the only ones who are w= illing/able to attend every meeting in person. Given that our leadership se= lection process depends on in-person attendance, both as a way to select nom= com members and as a requirement for leadership positions, that would run co= unter to our efforts to make the IETF a more diverse organization across man= y lines. > >=20 > > Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl, the meeting= in Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular attendees, and this m= ade it harder to get work done, IMO. Attendance numbers (and therefore regi= stration fees) were also down. What are the benefits that offset those cost= s? Does having one meeting in a country actually result in an increase in m= eaningful, ongoing participation from people in that country? Has anyone ch= ecked how many first-time attendees from a given location send mail to our m= ailing lists more than six months later, attend future meetings (in person o= r remotely) and/or author documents? If so, could someone publish the resul= ts of these studies? > >=20 > > This is obviously a very complicated issue. The IETF has a choice to ma= ke about what sort of organization it wants to be, and there are rational vi= ewpoints on both sides of this issue. I don=E2=80=99t think we will resolve= this issue, though, if we keep throwing up strawmen (like being unable to m= eet in Texas), instead of trying to understand the more subtle effects of th= e choices we are making in these situations. > >=20 > > No one person can have a diverse perspective, and I can=E2=80=99t claim t= o speak for everyone in the IETF about these sorts of issues any more than y= ou can. Probably the best way for the IETF to make good, carefully research= ed and highly responsive decisions in this area would be to have an IAOC tha= t is as diverse as possible, along as many different lines as possible. I w= ill send that suggestion as input to the new nomcom when it has formed. > >=20 > > Margaret > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > Recentattendees mailing list > > Recentattendees@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Recentattendees mailing list > Recentattendees@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees --Boundary_(ID_bSH34ycNRwCQ7SL0mzzOYA) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Without suggesting that anecdotal evid= ence is not data, I'll assert that I personally traveled to Singapore at lea= st a dozen times in the 90s with long hair, an unruly beard, and a relaxed a= ttitude about how to behave---always without incident. The only bad experien= ce I can claim involved an attempt to transport durian on the subway, in whi= ch I was in the wrong but had no idea it was illegal. 


=
jms
---
Joel M Snyder - Opus One - jms@Opus1.COM
Sent from my mobile device. Please e= xcuse style, grammar, and typos. 
Brevity is not intended to b= e brusque. 

On May 26, 2016, at 23:01, Lloyd Wood &= lt;lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk> w= rote:

this was still a concern for students visiting singapore in t= he early 90s.


Lloyd Wood

On= Friday, May 27, 2016, 6:07 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

Hi,

>It's a= serious question, and I don't know the answer.  Several years ago a fr= iend of mine was told by a >member of a country's embassy staff that it w= ould not be a good idea for him to visit there - because >of his appearan= ce.  He wore his hair long and had a lot of facial hair.

A long time ago, it was not allowed for men with lon= g hair to enter Singapore. But, that law was removed in the 70's (if I remem= ber correctly), as the hippie movement was fading away.
Regards,

Christer




> On May 26, 2016, at 2= :44 PM, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com> wrote:>
> Hi Fred,
>= ;
>> On May 26, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Fred Baker (fred)= <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>> http:/= /www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodomy-a-decade= -after-court-ruling/7981025/ indicates that 12 states have anti-sodomy l= aws on the books, including Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Mich= igan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.=
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled= that those laws are unconstitutional.  The fact that states have not c= leared them off the books is annoying, but does not mean that they are curre= ntly enforced or enforceable.
>
>= As far as I know, the law in Singapore is still in force.  According t= o videos sent by one of the posters here, their Parliament considered rescin= ding the law bout 10 years ago, and decided not to rescind it. 
>
>> We have met three times in Texa= s, three times in Florida, and once in Utah. We have had no incident that I b= ecame aware of.
>
> Did any IETF p= articipant claim, in advance or since, that it wouldn=E2=80=99t be safe for t= hem to travel to those locations?
>>
>> Which doesn't say that Ted is wrong, but it says that his infor= mation is dated.
>
>
> I have known Ted Hardie for almost two decades, and while we don= =E2=80=99t always agree, I have never known him to be careless, alarmist or p= aranoid.  Ted cares deeply about the IETF and the Internet, and I don=E2= =80=99t believe he would raise an issue like this to gain attention or obstr= uct our work.  So, when Ted says that it might be unsafe for him to tra= vel to Singapore with his family, I believe that there are rational reasons f= or him to think so.
>
>> If we= can't go to Singapore, I don't see how we go back to Texas, Utah, Florida, i= mportant parts of Africa, or the Arab world. And, oh yes, much of Eastern As= ia. To me, that's the crux of the issue. I respect Ted, Melinda, and the man= y others that are LGBT and working in the IETF. However, the issue has, in m= y opinion, become far more political/emotional than fact-based. I'd like us t= o make sure we have the right guidelines in venue selection that focus on ha= ving successful meetings, and remote participation capabilities that will en= able someone that chooses to attend that way to do so productively.
>
> I hope we would not go to most of the= Arab world, anyway, because of the status of women in those countries. = ; I would not be willing to travel to a country where women cannot vote, can= not own property, cannot drive, etc.  So, if the IETF were to go to one= of those countries, I would not attend.  I would also think less of th= e IETF and it=E2=80=99s commitment to gender diversity. (BTW, I think it is f= ine for women to _choose_ to abide by religious or cultural restrictions =E2= =80=94 I object to laws that require them to do so.)
> <= br clear=3D"none">> You seem to be advocating for an IETF that meets all o= ver the world, while people who are unwilling to travel to those places for r= easons of safety or ethics would stay home and participate remotely.  W= hile there might be some (as yet unquantified, see below) advantage to that a= pproach, it would have the _hugely unfortunate effect_ that the most privile= ged people in the world (rich, white, U.S./European, straight men) might be t= he only ones who are willing/able to attend every meeting in person.  G= iven that our leadership selection process depends on in-person attendance, b= oth as a way to select nomcom members and as a requirement for leadership po= sitions, that would run counter to our efforts to make the IETF a more diver= se organization across many lines.
>
> Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl, the meeti= ng in Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular attendees, and this= made it harder to get work done, IMO.  Attendance numbers (and therefo= re registration fees) were also down.  What are the benefits that offse= t those costs?  Does having one meeting in a country actually result in= an increase in meaningful, ongoing participation from people in that countr= y?  Has anyone checked how many first-time attendees from a given locat= ion send mail to our mailing lists more than six months later, attend future= meetings (in person or remotely) and/or author documents?  If so, coul= d someone publish the results of these studies?
>
> This is obviously a very complicated issue.  The IET= F has a choice to make about what sort of organization it wants to be, and t= here are rational viewpoints on both sides of this issue.  I don=E2=80=99= t think we will resolve this issue, though, if we keep throwing up strawmen (= like being unable to meet in Texas), instead of trying to understand the mor= e subtle effects of the choices we are making in these situations.
>
> No one person can have a diverse perspec= tive, and I can=E2=80=99t claim to speak for everyone in the IETF about thes= e sorts of issues any more than you can.  Probably the best way for the= IETF to make good, carefully researched and highly responsive decisions in t= his area would be to have an IAOC that is as diverse as possible, along as m= any different lines as possible.  I will send that suggestion as input t= o the new nomcom when it has formed.
>
> Margaret
>
>
>
>
> ________________= _______________________________
> Recentattendees maili= ng list
> Recentattendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi= nfo/recentattendees

____________________= ___________________________
Recentattendees mailing list
Recentattendees@iet= f.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
= --Boundary_(ID_bSH34ycNRwCQ7SL0mzzOYA)-- From nobody Thu May 26 17:11:57 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E01C12D13F; Thu, 26 May 2016 17:11:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f5hwkkvTAOSl; Thu, 26 May 2016 17:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1BFC12D0BD; Thu, 26 May 2016 17:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.104] (192-174-17-190.fibertel.com.ar [190.17.174.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E869E805E1; Fri, 27 May 2016 02:11:45 +0200 (CEST) To: Margaret Cullen , "Fred Baker (fred)" References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> From: Fernando Gont X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 20:11:08 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 00:11:54 -0000 On 05/26/2016 02:44 PM, Margaret Cullen wrote: > > You seem to be advocating for an IETF that meets all over the world, > while people who are unwilling to travel to those places for reasons > of safety or ethics would stay home and participate remotely. While > there might be some (as yet unquantified, see below) advantage to > that approach, it would have the _hugely unfortunate effect_ that the > most privileged people in the world (rich, white, U.S./European, > straight men) might be the only ones who are willing/able to attend > every meeting in person. Given that our leadership selection process > depends on in-person attendance, both as a way to select nomcom > members and as a requirement for leadership positions, that would run > counter to our efforts to make the IETF a more diverse organization > across many lines. Maybe what run counters making the IETF a more diverse organization is the requirement to attend meetings in person in the first place? > Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl, the > meeting in Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular > attendees, and this made it harder to get work done, IMO. So this sounds like there's some form of diversity that is desirable, and others that aren't (e.g., geographic diversity)? e.g., why don't you see this "world tour" (which for a BA-resident wasn't actually a tour in the first place) as something that goes in favor of diversity? Or is it just that only some forms/expressions of diversity are desirable? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Thu May 26 21:11:55 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE0E12D80F; Thu, 26 May 2016 21:11:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hwcXIWaVRkpH; Thu, 26 May 2016 21:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from colo.trepanning.net (colo.trepanning.net [69.55.226.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC5C12D54F; Thu, 26 May 2016 21:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.trepanning.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colo.trepanning.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B937910224008; Thu, 26 May 2016 21:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 69.12.173.8 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dharkins@lounge.org) by www.trepanning.net with HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2016 21:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <955df2106aa2e12cefbd450be022e779.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> In-Reply-To: <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:11:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Dan Harkins" To: "Fernando Gont" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Archived-At: Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" , Margaret Cullen , Fred Baker , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 04:11:53 -0000 On Thu, May 26, 2016 5:11 pm, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 05/26/2016 02:44 PM, Margaret Cullen wrote: [snip] >> Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl, the >> meeting in Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular >> attendees, and this made it harder to get work done, IMO. > > So this sounds like there's some form of diversity that is desirable, > and others that aren't (e.g., geographic diversity)? e.g., why don't you > see this "world tour" (which for a BA-resident wasn't actually a tour in > the first place) as something that goes in favor of diversity? Or is it > just that only some forms/expressions of diversity are desirable? Amen and a +1. Among the social justice crowd there seems to be a selective definition of "diversity". A good mix of people that might be underrepresented by "regular attendees" can still be "diverse". And I would claim that BA qualified. I would also like to suggest that the ability of certain members to bring their family on a vacation that coincides with an IETF should not be a governing factor in venue selection. Many people like to launder a business trip into a family vacation (myself included!) but that's not why the IETF exists and it should have no bearing on where we meet. Dan. From nobody Fri May 27 00:19:38 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7564012D5F5 for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 00:19:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.co.uk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6NrkcmFeAPQ5 for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 00:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm40-vm1.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com (nm40-vm1.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com [212.82.97.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C951712D5E7 for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 00:19:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s2048; t=1464333553; bh=o/VwGT1GRyctcwWRKjzezwPRy3hFhITE69hTZnQuiwY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=FrzxgTGocJ5x7jhZNpHhR7xfk9XQm+ZAbubVnvGlrp79iNHqAV1HoqSv/7Zz3Ob9CvD1nWHxRq2xCAVKxfG74xHsw6dat95zbiNqDfhhhP0s/DnaZKNbMTB4WYnuiLzhXA4rGs5NOtvqcj+prrRacOlxX70u1r3Aiu68nRl1MWHrAEcBLWQ0kkx42+GSPvqrIddKPrX5O1yH/AMnx041XldrH3mpPckQKdO/hhm5V83HufcmJlR+60+TOWIrOqGzsUWy+9Oj45oP8dOPnBhwP0mF4sp7FZ4xhUP7Nrfn8cZU9A+50kX0aYFen4wozwkWaQAwgziGPUi6viU3g3rO6w== Received: from [212.82.98.124] by nm40.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 May 2016 07:19:13 -0000 Received: from [212.82.98.109] by tm17.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 May 2016 07:19:13 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1046.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 May 2016 07:19:13 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 563143.74809.bm@omp1046.mail.ir2.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: H8GhoAAVM1nQJ9U1.CtnAtupeVeROUKKVTsTt2zY8TrnK488XkHO4.LmIrAOvS4 4Yt2ECubcyuMgCaGDztlvRhV.t_k.WM_v1SzUDveh864bXjjqKfWdbFArbhMIsBbSvBzyQjBeLth cT0KOM0A5Q84rg.2E1vnY39duBGu6NRHJP6bkMxkIwPrp3.4HxYfPOoyMiX0szrAhBgnUNhIrhFU ukArLGZpOLrZucgnbjITOZ1oT4RPkS42dthJ2JRwki9jVXc6xq.QHcIn4fBxvYgbtn58EYwGJrC_ 2Dcli2bP0LsLSnA9Z9E5wIvF.MVtv6NnGAOUpQRIx_1iFal2ZyLLLOtgSrEkHe7MwWY4pMwMaMKq k61T8VLpT4XpAkJomFKvX5_ln.5V44lyMhXfryCPQ_yhf9pGU44dEyWowPvhtnHu4o6Q1t2Ml.6b TtgB3rJ5VdbHNL3VFzG2oJX77FtdYuoRAmezlgqElDEQT_QJB3b.j6DX.uwSwSi_BfnhWJDaIuKJ 5xajfDHql.ZvqNz15nLQH5Rc- Received: from jws11126.mail.ir2.yahoo.com by sendmailws108.mail.ir2.yahoo.com; Fri, 27 May 2016 07:19:12 +0000; 1464333552.976 Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 07:19:07 +0000 (UTC) From: Lloyd Wood To: Joel Snyder , Lloyd Wood , IETF Discussion List Message-ID: <1890429545.190701.1464333547665.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <80D305EA-3A1A-4188-8C3A-E693E39118BA@opus1.com> References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37FF1835@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <1880162818.42138.1464296474767.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <80D305EA-3A1A-4188-8C3A-E693E39118BA@opus1.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_190700_1869372961.1464333547659" Archived-At: Cc: "Ietf@Ietf. Org" , Margaret Cullen , "recentattendees@ietf.org" , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , Christer Holmberg , Keith Moore Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 07:19:20 -0000 ------=_Part_190700_1869372961.1464333547659 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px = #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:whi= te !important; } I neglected to mention that the students were not white..= . Lloyd Woodlloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk On Friday, May 27, 2016, 7:12 AM, Joel Snyder wrote= : Without suggesting that anecdotal evidence is not data, I'll assert that I = personally traveled to Singapore at least a dozen times in the 90s with lon= g hair, an unruly beard, and a relaxed attitude about how to behave---alway= s without incident. The only bad experience I can claim involved an attempt= to transport durian on the subway, in which I was in the wrong but had no = idea it was illegal.=C2=A0 jms---Joel M Snyder - Opus One - jms@Opus1.COMSent from my mobile device. P= lease excuse style, grammar, and typos.=C2=A0Brevity is not intended to be = brusque.=C2=A0 On May 26, 2016, at 23:01, Lloyd Wood wrote: this was still a concern for students visiting singapore in the early 90s. Lloyd Woodlloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk On Friday, May 27, 2016, 6:07 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: Hi, >It's a serious question, and I don't know the answer.=C2=A0 Several years = ago a friend of mine was told by a >member of a country's embassy staff tha= t it would not be a good idea for him to visit there - because >of his appe= arance.=C2=A0 He wore his hair long and had a lot of facial hair.=20 A long time ago, it was not allowed for men with long hair to enter Singapo= re. But, that law was removed in the 70's (if I remember correctly), as the= hippie movement was fading away. Regards, Christer > On May 26, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Margaret Cullen wrot= e: >=20 > Hi Fred, >=20 >> On May 26, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodom= y-a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/ indicates that 12 states have anti-s= odomy laws on the books, including Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kans= as, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas = and Utah. >=20 > The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those laws are unconstitutional.=C2=A0 = The fact that states have not cleared them off the books is annoying, but d= oes not mean that they are currently enforced or enforceable. >=20 > As far as I know, the law in Singapore is still in force.=C2=A0 According= to videos sent by one of the posters here, their Parliament considered res= cinding the law bout 10 years ago, and decided not to rescind it.=C2=A0=20 >=20 >> We have met three times in Texas, three times in Florida, and once in Ut= ah. We have had no incident that I became aware of. >=20 > Did any IETF participant claim, in advance or since, that it wouldn=E2=80= =99t be safe for them to travel to those locations? >>=20 >> Which doesn't say that Ted is wrong, but it says that his information is= dated. >=20 >=20 > I have known Ted Hardie for almost two decades, and while we don=E2=80=99= t always agree, I have never known him to be careless, alarmist or paranoid= .=C2=A0 Ted cares deeply about the IETF and the Internet, and I don=E2=80= =99t believe he would raise an issue like this to gain attention or obstruc= t our work.=C2=A0 So, when Ted says that it might be unsafe for him to trav= el to Singapore with his family, I believe that there are rational reasons = for him to think so. >=20 >> If we can't go to Singapore, I don't see how we go back to Texas, Utah, = Florida, important parts of Africa, or the Arab world. And, oh yes, much of= Eastern Asia. To me, that's the crux of the issue. I respect Ted, Melinda,= and the many others that are LGBT and working in the IETF. However, the is= sue has, in my opinion, become far more political/emotional than fact-based= . I'd like us to make sure we have the right guidelines in venue selection = that focus on having successful meetings, and remote participation capabili= ties that will enable someone that chooses to attend that way to do so prod= uctively. >=20 > I hope we would not go to most of the Arab world, anyway, because of the = status of women in those countries.=C2=A0 I would not be willing to travel = to a country where women cannot vote, cannot own property, cannot drive, et= c.=C2=A0 So, if the IETF were to go to one of those countries, I would not = attend.=C2=A0 I would also think less of the IETF and it=E2=80=99s commitme= nt to gender diversity. (BTW, I think it is fine for women to _choose_ to a= bide by religious or cultural restrictions =E2=80=94 I object to laws that = require them to do so.) >=20 > You seem to be advocating for an IETF that meets all over the world, whil= e people who are unwilling to travel to those places for reasons of safety = or ethics would stay home and participate remotely.=C2=A0 While there might= be some (as yet unquantified, see below) advantage to that approach, it wo= uld have the _hugely unfortunate effect_ that the most privileged people in= the world (rich, white, U.S./European, straight men) might be the only one= s who are willing/able to attend every meeting in person.=C2=A0 Given that = our leadership selection process depends on in-person attendance, both as a= way to select nomcom members and as a requirement for leadership positions= , that would run counter to our efforts to make the IETF a more diverse org= anization across many lines. >=20 > Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl, the meeting = in Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular attendees, and this m= ade it harder to get work done, IMO.=C2=A0 Attendance numbers (and therefor= e registration fees) were also down.=C2=A0 What are the benefits that offse= t those costs?=C2=A0 Does having one meeting in a country actually result i= n an increase in meaningful, ongoing participation from people in that coun= try?=C2=A0 Has anyone checked how many first-time attendees from a given lo= cation send mail to our mailing lists more than six months later, attend fu= ture meetings (in person or remotely) and/or author documents?=C2=A0 If so,= could someone publish the results of these studies? >=20 > This is obviously a very complicated issue.=C2=A0 The IETF has a choice t= o make about what sort of organization it wants to be, and there are ration= al viewpoints on both sides of this issue.=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t think we w= ill resolve this issue, though, if we keep throwing up strawmen (like being= unable to meet in Texas), instead of trying to understand the more subtle = effects of the choices we are making in these situations. >=20 > No one person can have a diverse perspective, and I can=E2=80=99t claim t= o speak for everyone in the IETF about these sorts of issues any more than = you can.=C2=A0 Probably the best way for the IETF to make good, carefully r= esearched and highly responsive decisions in this area would be to have an = IAOC that is as diverse as possible, along as many different lines as possi= ble.=C2=A0 I will send that suggestion as input to the new nomcom when it h= as formed. >=20 > Margaret >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Recentattendees mailing list > Recentattendees@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees =20 _______________________________________________ Recentattendees mailing list Recentattendees@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees =20 ------=_Part_190700_1869372961.1464333547659 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I neglected to mention that the students were not white...<= br>
Lloyd Wood
lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk

On Friday, May 27, 2016, 7:12 AM, Joel Snyder <Joel.Snyder@O= pus1.COM> wrote:

Without suggesti= ng that anecdotal evidence is not data, I'll assert that I personally trave= led to Singapore at least a dozen times in the 90s with long hair, an unrul= y beard, and a relaxed attitude about how to behave---always without incide= nt. The only bad experience I can claim involved an attempt to transport du= rian on the subway, in which I was in the wrong but had no idea it was ille= gal. 


jms
---
Joel M Snyder - Opus One - jms@Opus1.COM
Sent from my mobile device. Plea= se excuse style, grammar, and typos. 
Brevity is not intende= d to be brusque. 

On May 26, 2016, at 23:01, Lloyd Wood= <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk<= /a>> wrote:

this was still a concern for students visiting singapore in= the early 90s.


Llo= yd Wood

On Friday, Ma= y 27, 2016, 6:07 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

Hi,

>It's a ser= ious question, and I don't know the answer.  Several years ago a frien= d of mine was told by a >member of a country's embassy staff that it wou= ld not be a good idea for him to visit there - because >of his appearanc= e.  He wore his hair long and had a lot of facial hair.

A long time ago, it was not allowed for men with lo= ng hair to enter Singapore. But, that law was removed in the 70's (if I rem= ember correctly), as the hippie movement was fading away.

Regards,

Christer<= div class=3D"yQTDBase yqt2928179257" id=3D"yqtfd64631">
<= br clear=3D"none">

> On May 26, 201= 6, at 2:44 PM, Margaret Cullen <marga= retw42@gmail.com> wrote:
>
&= gt; Hi Fred,
>
>> On May 26, = 2016, at 1:15 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <= fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-so= domy-a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/ indicates that 12 states have= anti-sodomy laws on the books, including Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Idah= o, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,= Texas and Utah.
>
> The U.S. Su= preme Court ruled that those laws are unconstitutional.  The fact that= states have not cleared them off the books is annoying, but does not mean = that they are currently enforced or enforceable.
> > As far as I know, the law in Singapore is still in for= ce.  According to videos sent by one of the posters here, their Parlia= ment considered rescinding the law bout 10 years ago, and decided not to re= scind it. 
>
>> We have= met three times in Texas, three times in Florida, and once in Utah. We hav= e had no incident that I became aware of.
>
> Did any IETF participant claim, in advance or since, that it= wouldn=E2=80=99t be safe for them to travel to those locations?
>>
>> Which doesn't say that Ted i= s wrong, but it says that his information is dated.
> =
>
> I have known Ted Hardie for= almost two decades, and while we don=E2=80=99t always agree, I have never = known him to be careless, alarmist or paranoid.  Ted cares deeply abou= t the IETF and the Internet, and I don=E2=80=99t believe he would raise an = issue like this to gain attention or obstruct our work.  So, when Ted = says that it might be unsafe for him to travel to Singapore with his family= , I believe that there are rational reasons for him to think so.
>
>> If we can't go to Singapore, I d= on't see how we go back to Texas, Utah, Florida, important parts of Africa,= or the Arab world. And, oh yes, much of Eastern Asia. To me, that's the cr= ux of the issue. I respect Ted, Melinda, and the many others that are LGBT = and working in the IETF. However, the issue has, in my opinion, become far = more political/emotional than fact-based. I'd like us to make sure we have = the right guidelines in venue selection that focus on having successful mee= tings, and remote participation capabilities that will enable someone that = chooses to attend that way to do so productively.
> > I hope we would not go to most of the Arab world, any= way, because of the status of women in those countries.  I would not b= e willing to travel to a country where women cannot vote, cannot own proper= ty, cannot drive, etc.  So, if the IETF were to go to one of those cou= ntries, I would not attend.  I would also think less of the IETF and i= t=E2=80=99s commitment to gender diversity. (BTW, I think it is fine for wo= men to _choose_ to abide by religious or cultural restrictions =E2=80=94 I = object to laws that require them to do so.)
>
> You seem to be advocating for an IETF that meets all over t= he world, while people who are unwilling to travel to those places for reas= ons of safety or ethics would stay home and participate remotely.  Whi= le there might be some (as yet unquantified, see below) advantage to that a= pproach, it would have the _hugely unfortunate effect_ that the most privil= eged people in the world (rich, white, U.S./European, straight men) might b= e the only ones who are willing/able to attend every meeting in person.&nbs= p; Given that our leadership selection process depends on in-person attenda= nce, both as a way to select nomcom members and as a requirement for leader= ship positions, that would run counter to our efforts to make the IETF a mo= re diverse organization across many lines.
>
> Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl,= the meeting in Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular attendee= s, and this made it harder to get work done, IMO.  Attendance numbers = (and therefore registration fees) were also down.  What are the benefi= ts that offset those costs?  Does having one meeting in a country actu= ally result in an increase in meaningful, ongoing participation from people= in that country?  Has anyone checked how many first-time attendees fr= om a given location send mail to our mailing lists more than six months lat= er, attend future meetings (in person or remotely) and/or author documents?=   If so, could someone publish the results of these studies?
>
> This is obviously a very complicated= issue.  The IETF has a choice to make about what sort of organization= it wants to be, and there are rational viewpoints on both sides of this is= sue.  I don=E2=80=99t think we will resolve this issue, though, if we = keep throwing up strawmen (like being unable to meet in Texas), instead of = trying to understand the more subtle effects of the choices we are making i= n these situations.
>
> No one p= erson can have a diverse perspective, and I can=E2=80=99t claim to speak fo= r everyone in the IETF about these sorts of issues any more than you can.&n= bsp; Probably the best way for the IETF to make good, carefully researched = and highly responsive decisions in this area would be to have an IAOC that = is as diverse as possible, along as many different lines as possible. = I will send that suggestion as input to the new nomcom when it has formed.=
>
> Margaret
= >
>
>
>= ;
> _______________________________________________> Recentattendees mailing list
> <= a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect">Recentattendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/recentattendees

_____________= __________________________________
Recentatt= endees mailing list
Recentattendees@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mai= lman/listinfo/recentattendees
------=_Part_190700_1869372961.1464333547659-- From nobody Fri May 27 06:34:25 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96CEF12DA98; Fri, 27 May 2016 06:34:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id taZMHJ_dAq_4; Fri, 27 May 2016 06:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agwhqht.amgreetings.com (agwhqht.amgreetings.com [207.58.192.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9DC412DA91; Fri, 27 May 2016 06:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com ([fe80::f5de:4c30:bc26:d70a]) by USCLES531.agna.amgreetings.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:34:19 -0400 From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" To: "Thompson, Jeff" , Dan Harkins Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Thread-Index: AQHRttH8UrBM/maGFUe4CZVoUTOlHZ/LqQwAgAAFxYCAAAsWAIAAGKcAgABbZACAAENCgIAAPmcAgAAX4EA= Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:34:19 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <955df2106aa2e12cefbd450be022e779.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.144.15.223] x-kse-attachmentfiltering-interceptor-info: protection disabled x-kse-serverinfo: USCLES531.agna.amgreetings.com, 9 x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean, bases: 5/27/2016 8:32:00 AM x-kse-dlp-scaninfo: Skipped Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:34:22 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thompson, Jeff > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:55 AM > To: Dan Harkins > Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org; Ietf@Ietf. Org > Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF > 100 >=20 > On 2016/5/26, 21:11:51, "Recentattendees on behalf of Dan Harkins" > > wrote: >=20 > > I would also like to suggest that the ability of certain members to > >bring their family on a vacation that coincides with an IETF should not > >be a governing factor in venue selection. Many people like to launder a > >business trip into a family vacation (myself > >included!) but that's not why the IETF exists and it should have no > >bearing on where we meet. >=20 > So then, the IETF policy would read =B3The IETF may hold meetings in coun= tries > where the law declares some people less valid. If you are such a person, = then > the IETF recommends that to avoid trouble with the law you should hide wh= o > you are, including not bringing your family.=B2 >=20 > Is this the organization that the IETF is going to be? >=20 > - Jeff >=20 Jeff,=20 Is there any country in the world that meets the standard your comment impl= ies should be the IETF policy? Is this a case of perfection being the enemy= of good? Perhaps it is a case of perfection being the enemy of reality. I = don't know what IETF policy should be but I do recognize that there are ver= y real limitations that constrain choices. I'll also point out that the cho= ices made will constrain the choices of participants. I'm not advocating fo= r any particular choice by the IETF with regard to meeting locations.=20 Mike From nobody Fri May 27 07:19:04 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FBB812DAE9; Fri, 27 May 2016 07:19:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.028 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ScUUk7ZUwFQA; Fri, 27 May 2016 07:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpjc.telefonica.com (smtpjc.telefonica.com [81.47.204.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C561612D695; Fri, 27 May 2016 07:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpjc.telefonica.com (localhost6.localdomain6 [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFBD11B875E; Fri, 27 May 2016 16:18:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESTGVMSP112.EUROPE.telefonica.corp (unknown [10.92.4.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ESTGVMSP112", Issuer "ESTGVMSP112" (not verified)) by smtpjc.telefonica.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C79351B8746; Fri, 27 May 2016 16:18:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.92.5.139) by tls.telefonica.com (10.93.6.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.266.1; Fri, 27 May 2016 16:18:52 +0200 Received: from DB4PR06MB0639.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.161.13.145) by DB4PR06MB0640.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.161.13.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.506.2; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:17:50 +0000 Received: from DB4PR06MB0639.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.161.13.145]) by DB4PR06MB0639.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.161.13.145]) with mapi id 15.01.0506.007; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:17:50 +0000 From: PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ To: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" , "Thompson, Jeff" , Dan Harkins Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Thread-Index: AQHRttJ9SxvaAtaLtEiATGzykbpbrZ/LqQwAgAAFxYCAAAsWAIAAGKcAgABbZACAAENCgIAAPmcAgAAX4ECAADF7AA== Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:17:50 +0000 Message-ID: <932CBCA3-AFDD-4E9B-8D1C-F346C80CEC83@telefonica.com> References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <955df2106aa2e12cefbd450be022e779.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Content-Language: es-ES X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.16.0.160506 authentication-results: ag.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ag.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=telefonica.com; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [193.145.14.145] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1bf2b891-a1d1-4ee7-3ed3-08d38639afc4 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB4PR06MB0640; 5:WZy3XAwEMuMhwdSBDYfN9wsFZzcXxEEjE6iHAnmrQgDRH624YufQeLs7hIH42RhWoUIWwYJoxaqkjv3i8zgPlyXwSzf/InhlZZIAoNr8RiGVI1tlZQu7sWqTBWOaEr9MyEshzt9TaIutlb6QjoKupQ==; 24:bzDqr5n46t760fI1GPAexz57K3kiZTc9SF4qoOLQO+S7mL4Denex/c513q1uAuaHnVt/UkaMowlMR2OxRYgaaddOLj4ydST1qWaPYuNY88U=; 7:iKclXOWt+pioN7/EsZcHyrp1Ioa1xTE34aglWmJ4z/rJC4ur4WCxqGTcLlefkCVFl6ZL+20rD7QCDw07PLK1zt8HxxvCoqlmADeu1Zs8+/TcZ6wX60K4muVTsvRkz7SWSKIKtXZoEndSece/ed5Cn4IwyGcOPM2br0Reg1TUyKLhy/hNgQ7lwKMDSBLkdabE x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB0640; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(35073007944872)(270544422350281); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:DB4PR06MB0640; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB4PR06MB0640; x-forefront-prvs: 09555FB1AD x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(59124004)(13464003)(377454003)(24454002)(8936002)(5008740100001)(3280700002)(81166006)(575784001)(189998001)(2171001)(83506001)(3660700001)(10400500002)(1220700001)(19580405001)(102836003)(586003)(33656002)(8676002)(19580395003)(86362001)(93886004)(6116002)(87936001)(5001770100001)(122556002)(4001350100001)(54356999)(3846002)(106116001)(5002640100001)(15975445007)(5004730100002)(92566002)(50986999)(76176999)(4326007)(66066001)(77096005)(36756003)(2950100001)(2900100001)(11100500001)(2906002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR06MB0640; H:DB4PR06MB0639.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 May 2016 14:17:50.7941 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9744600e-3e04-492e-baa1-25ec245c6f10 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB4PR06MB0640 X-OriginatorOrg: telefonica.com X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 Archived-At: Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:19:02 -0000 SGkgZm9sa3MsDQoNCkludGVyZXN0aW5nIGRpc2N1c3Npb27igKYgYnJpbmdzIG1lbW9yaWVzIHRv IG1lIGZyb20gdGhlIHRpbWUgSSB3YXMgdmVyeSB5b3VuZyBhbmQgbXkgY291bnRyeSB3YXMgYSBk aWN0YXRvcnNoaXAgYW5kIHNvbWUgY2l0aXplbnMgd2VyZSBtb3JlIGNpdGl6ZW5zIHRoYW4gb3Ro ZXJzLg0KU28gaXTigJlzIGFib3V0IGJhbGFuY2luZyBtYW55IGFzcGVjdHMgaGVyZToNCuKAoiBW aXNpdG9ycyBmZWVsaW5nIHdlbGNvbWUNCuKAoiBUaGUgZXZlbnQgYmVpbmcgYWJ1c2VkIGZvciBh IFBSIHdhc2gtdXAgb2YgdGhlIGxvY2FsIGNhY2lxdWUNCuKAoiBMb2NhbHMgYmVpbmcgZ2l2ZW4g dGhlIG9wcG9ydHVuaXR5IHRvIGludGVyYWN0IHdpdGggcGVvcGxlIHdpdGggZGlmZmVyZW50IGJh Y2tncm91bmRzLCBldGMuDQrigKIgRXRjLiBldGMNCkkgd2VsY29tZSB0aGVzZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9u cywgYmVjYXVzZSBpbiBtYW55IG90aGVyIOKAmGdsb2JhbOKAmSBldmVudHMgdGhleSBkbyBub3Qg ZXhpc3QgZm9yIHRoZSBzYWtlIG9mIG1vbmV5IChPbHltcGljcywgRklGQSwgRklCQSwg4oCmKS4g U2l0IGJhY2ssIHJlbGF4IGFuZCB0aGluayBpdCB0aG9yb3VnaGx5IHRocm91Z2guIEFuZCB0aGVu LCBpbiB0aGUgZnV0dXJlLCBiZSBjb25zaXN0ZW50IOKYug0KDQpNeSAtLjIgY2VudHMgaW4gdGhp cyBkaXNjdXNzaW9uDQotLS0NCkRyLiBQZWRybyBBLiBBcmFuZGEgR3V0acOpcnJleg0KDQpUZWNo bm9sb2d5IEV4cGxvcmF0aW9uIC0NCk5ldHdvcmsgSW5ub3ZhdGlvbiAmIFZpcnR1YWxpc2F0aW9u DQplbWFpbDogcGVkcm9hIGQwdCBhcmFuZGEgQXQgdGVsZWZvbmljYSBkMHQgY29tDQpUZWxlZsOz bmljYSwgSW52ZXN0aWdhY2nDs24geSBEZXNhcnJvbGxvDQpDLyBadXJiYXLDoW4sMTINCjI4MDEw IE1hZHJpZCwgU3BhaW4NCg0KRnJhZ2VuIHNpbmQgbmljaHQgZGEsIHVtIGJlYW50d29ydGV0IHp1 IHdlcmRlbi4NCkZyYWdlbiBzaW5kIGRhLCB1bSBnZXN0ZWxsdCB6dSB3ZXJkZW4uDQpHZW9yZyBL cmVpc2xlcg0KDQoNCg0KLS0tLS1NZW5zYWplIG9yaWdpbmFsLS0tLS0NCkRlOiBSZWNlbnRhdHRl bmRlZXMgPHJlY2VudGF0dGVuZGVlcy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnPiBlbiBub21icmUgZGUgIk1I IE1pY2hhZWwgSGFtbWVyICg1MzA0KSIgPE1IYW1tZXJAYWcuY29tPg0KRmVjaGE6IHZpZXJuZXMs IDI3IGRlIG1heW8gZGUgMjAxNiwgMTU6MzQNClBhcmE6ICJUaG9tcHNvbiwgSmVmZiIgPGplZmZ0 MEByZW1hcC51Y2xhLmVkdT4sIERhbiBIYXJraW5zIDxkaGFya2luc0Bsb3VuZ2Uub3JnPg0KQ0M6 ICJyZWNlbnRhdHRlbmRlZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmciIDxyZWNlbnRhdHRlbmRlZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+LCAi SWV0ZkBJZXRmLiBPcmciIDxpZXRmQGlldGYub3JnPg0KQXN1bnRvOiBSZTogW1JlY2VudGF0dGVu ZGVlc10gQmFja2dyb3VuZCBvbiBTaW5nYXBvcmUgZ28vbm8gZ28gZm9yIElFVEYgMTAwDQoNCj4N Cj4NCj4+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+PiBGcm9tOiBpZXRmIFttYWlsdG86 aWV0Zi1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgVGhvbXBzb24sIEplZmYNCj4+IFNl bnQ6IEZyaWRheSwgTWF5IDI3LCAyMDE2IDM6NTUgQU0NCj4+IFRvOiBEYW4gSGFya2lucw0KPj4g Q2M6IHJlY2VudGF0dGVuZGVlc0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgSWV0ZkBJZXRmLiBPcmcNCj4+IFN1YmplY3Q6 IFJlOiBbUmVjZW50YXR0ZW5kZWVzXSBCYWNrZ3JvdW5kIG9uIFNpbmdhcG9yZSBnby9ubyBnbyBm b3IgSUVURg0KPj4gMTAwDQo+Pg0KPj4gT24gMjAxNi81LzI2LCAyMToxMTo1MSwgIlJlY2VudGF0 dGVuZGVlcyBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgRGFuIEhhcmtpbnMiDQo+PiA8cmVjZW50YXR0ZW5kZWVzLWJv dW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIGRoYXJraW5zQGxvdW5nZS5vcmc+DQo+PiB3cm90 ZToNCj4+DQo+PiA+ICBJIHdvdWxkIGFsc28gbGlrZSB0byBzdWdnZXN0IHRoYXQgdGhlIGFiaWxp dHkgb2YgY2VydGFpbiBtZW1iZXJzIHRvDQo+PiA+YnJpbmcgdGhlaXIgZmFtaWx5IG9uIGEgdmFj YXRpb24gdGhhdCBjb2luY2lkZXMgd2l0aCBhbiBJRVRGIHNob3VsZCBub3QNCj4+ID5iZSBhIGdv dmVybmluZyBmYWN0b3IgaW4gdmVudWUgc2VsZWN0aW9uLiBNYW55IHBlb3BsZSBsaWtlIHRvIGxh dW5kZXIgYQ0KPj4gPmJ1c2luZXNzIHRyaXAgaW50byBhIGZhbWlseSB2YWNhdGlvbiAobXlzZWxm DQo+PiA+aW5jbHVkZWQhKSBidXQgdGhhdCdzIG5vdCB3aHkgdGhlIElFVEYgZXhpc3RzIGFuZCBp dCBzaG91bGQgaGF2ZSBubw0KPj4gPmJlYXJpbmcgb24gd2hlcmUgd2UgbWVldC4NCj4+DQo+PiBT byB0aGVuLCB0aGUgSUVURiBwb2xpY3kgd291bGQgcmVhZCDCs1RoZSBJRVRGIG1heSBob2xkIG1l ZXRpbmdzIGluIGNvdW50cmllcw0KPj4gd2hlcmUgdGhlIGxhdyBkZWNsYXJlcyBzb21lIHBlb3Bs ZSBsZXNzIHZhbGlkLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIHN1Y2ggYSBwZXJzb24sIHRoZW4NCj4+IHRoZSBJRVRG IHJlY29tbWVuZHMgdGhhdCB0byBhdm9pZCB0cm91YmxlIHdpdGggdGhlIGxhdyB5b3Ugc2hvdWxk IGhpZGUgd2hvDQo+PiB5b3UgYXJlLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgbm90IGJyaW5naW5nIHlvdXIgZmFtaWx5 LsKyDQo+Pg0KPj4gSXMgdGhpcyB0aGUgb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIHRoYXQgdGhlIElFVEYgaXMgZ29p bmcgdG8gYmU/DQo+Pg0KPj4gLSBKZWZmDQo+Pg0KPg0KPkplZmYsDQo+DQo+SXMgdGhlcmUgYW55 IGNvdW50cnkgaW4gdGhlIHdvcmxkIHRoYXQgbWVldHMgdGhlIHN0YW5kYXJkIHlvdXIgY29tbWVu dCBpbXBsaWVzIHNob3VsZCBiZSB0aGUgSUVURiBwb2xpY3k/IElzIHRoaXMgYSBjYXNlIG9mIHBl cmZlY3Rpb24gYmVpbmcgdGhlIGVuZW15IG9mIGdvb2Q/IFBlcmhhcHMgaXQgaXMgYSBjYXNlIG9m IHBlcmZlY3Rpb24gYmVpbmcgdGhlIGVuZW15IG9mIHJlYWxpdHkuIEkgZG9uJ3Qga25vdyB3aGF0 IElFVEYgcG9saWN5IHNob3VsZCBiZSBidXQgSSBkbyByZWNvZ25pemUgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBhcmUg dmVyeSByZWFsIGxpbWl0YXRpb25zIHRoYXQgY29uc3RyYWluIGNob2ljZXMuIEknbGwgYWxzbyBw b2ludCBvdXQgdGhhdCB0aGUgY2hvaWNlcyBtYWRlIHdpbGwgY29uc3RyYWluIHRoZSBjaG9pY2Vz IG9mIHBhcnRpY2lwYW50cy4gSSdtIG5vdCBhZHZvY2F0aW5nIGZvciBhbnkgcGFydGljdWxhciBj aG9pY2UgYnkgdGhlIElFVEYgd2l0aCByZWdhcmQgdG8gbWVldGluZyBsb2NhdGlvbnMuDQo+DQo+ TWlrZQ0KPg0KPl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f DQo+UmVjZW50YXR0ZW5kZWVzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPlJlY2VudGF0dGVuZGVlc0BpZXRmLm9y Zw0KPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcmVjZW50YXR0ZW5kZWVz DQoNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0KRXN0ZSBtZW5zYWplIHkg c3VzIGFkanVudG9zIHNlIGRpcmlnZW4gZXhjbHVzaXZhbWVudGUgYSBzdSBkZXN0aW5hdGFyaW8s IHB1ZWRlIGNvbnRlbmVyIGluZm9ybWFjacOzbiBwcml2aWxlZ2lhZGEgbyBjb25maWRlbmNpYWwg eSBlcyBwYXJhIHVzbyBleGNsdXNpdm8gZGUgbGEgcGVyc29uYSBvIGVudGlkYWQgZGUgZGVzdGlu by4gU2kgbm8gZXMgdXN0ZWQuIGVsIGRlc3RpbmF0YXJpbyBpbmRpY2FkbywgcXVlZGEgbm90aWZp Y2FkbyBkZSBxdWUgbGEgbGVjdHVyYSwgdXRpbGl6YWNpw7NuLCBkaXZ1bGdhY2nDs24geS9vIGNv cGlhIHNpbiBhdXRvcml6YWNpw7NuIHB1ZWRlIGVzdGFyIHByb2hpYmlkYSBlbiB2aXJ0dWQgZGUg bGEgbGVnaXNsYWNpw7NuIHZpZ2VudGUuIFNpIGhhIHJlY2liaWRvIGVzdGUgbWVuc2FqZSBwb3Ig ZXJyb3IsIGxlIHJvZ2Ftb3MgcXVlIG5vcyBsbyBjb211bmlxdWUgaW5tZWRpYXRhbWVudGUgcG9y IGVzdGEgbWlzbWEgdsOtYSB5IHByb2NlZGEgYSBzdSBkZXN0cnVjY2nDs24uDQoNClRoZSBpbmZv cm1hdGlvbiBjb250YWluZWQgaW4gdGhpcyB0cmFuc21pc3Npb24gaXMgcHJpdmlsZWdlZCBhbmQg Y29uZmlkZW50aWFsIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGludGVuZGVkIG9ubHkgZm9yIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhl IGluZGl2aWR1YWwgb3IgZW50aXR5IG5hbWVkIGFib3ZlLiBJZiB0aGUgcmVhZGVyIG9mIHRoaXMg bWVzc2FnZSBpcyBub3QgdGhlIGludGVuZGVkIHJlY2lwaWVudCwgeW91IGFyZSBoZXJlYnkgbm90 aWZpZWQgdGhhdCBhbnkgZGlzc2VtaW5hdGlvbiwgZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uIG9yIGNvcHlpbmcgb2Yg dGhpcyBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIGlzIHN0cmljdGx5IHByb2hpYml0ZWQuIElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIHJl Y2VpdmVkIHRoaXMgdHJhbnNtaXNzaW9uIGluIGVycm9yLCBkbyBub3QgcmVhZCBpdC4gUGxlYXNl IGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IHJlcGx5IHRvIHRoZSBzZW5kZXIgdGhhdCB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0 aGlzIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24gaW4gZXJyb3IgYW5kIHRoZW4gZGVsZXRlIGl0Lg0KDQpFc3RhIG1l bnNhZ2VtIGUgc2V1cyBhbmV4b3Mgc2UgZGlyaWdlbSBleGNsdXNpdmFtZW50ZSBhbyBzZXUgZGVz dGluYXTDoXJpbywgcG9kZSBjb250ZXIgaW5mb3JtYcOnw6NvIHByaXZpbGVnaWFkYSBvdSBjb25m aWRlbmNpYWwgZSDDqSBwYXJhIHVzbyBleGNsdXNpdm8gZGEgcGVzc29hIG91IGVudGlkYWRlIGRl IGRlc3Rpbm8uIFNlIG7Do28gw6kgdm9zc2Egc2VuaG9yaWEgbyBkZXN0aW5hdMOhcmlvIGluZGlj YWRvLCBmaWNhIG5vdGlmaWNhZG8gZGUgcXVlIGEgbGVpdHVyYSwgdXRpbGl6YcOnw6NvLCBkaXZ1 bGdhw6fDo28gZS9vdSBjw7NwaWEgc2VtIGF1dG9yaXphw6fDo28gcG9kZSBlc3RhciBwcm9pYmlk YSBlbSB2aXJ0dWRlIGRhIGxlZ2lzbGHDp8OjbyB2aWdlbnRlLiBTZSByZWNlYmV1IGVzdGEgbWVu c2FnZW0gcG9yIGVycm8sIHJvZ2Ftb3MtbGhlIHF1ZSBub3MgbyBjb211bmlxdWUgaW1lZGlhdGFt ZW50ZSBwb3IgZXN0YSBtZXNtYSB2aWEgZSBwcm9jZWRhIGEgc3VhIGRlc3RydWnDp8Ojbw0K From nobody Fri May 27 09:32:51 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A9812D715; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:32:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Y9mJeIkgDPZ; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x22c.google.com (mail-yw0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C38F12D6D1; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id c127so110776489ywb.1; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:32:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=RHcoB77X/DAkLF29/gHL+aSxcPEHHA3/cTOIPHSakls=; b=uyr7zhMV1QOi/K0o5lzeH9w5SA1WMr9M1Hjo1iwQkC99Thdkqr6TREGPTjl1rMsqWk pfd97UgV8DCthS5Ir54COpkf2ZvSDGcXcgdv/+iWGKOu8yd8C1KfjTUam0QXpGUJfF7l /dLhIAzKVCSLna0Ncnl6FvTOiyw/Rb8N8GbxAZP5Pt+Ty6QpFaFG+DNc8Ns6087tPwsE zPtzwZaWGNjELubQKZgkkHNOUgcKVfQfYspPY7ppxW9PE7Zxh9H6HwF9Wk7JE9yz7hbs rWiYjAU4h/DlfXdBAa1xLqHGXumMrgV3BKOZkEMEefXzAGwpxx72rbS1ZfQB0q8eeJJj yZ5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=RHcoB77X/DAkLF29/gHL+aSxcPEHHA3/cTOIPHSakls=; b=DUUo1q/Uka6uWcIsZW7rR3SXSOeM4JfFpHgU8L//Gdc1eo4gWN9asM4oWclvUcGUj0 KGRA29w2lFCh5Mz49fJIpnBpkUocrl2AFr48Yt1ZGwuzL8LqF8MFnLT72J1LtJXls6QF Rf/k/+pP+9/Omf/V1QuAeJNOlO7wnvm7lpINpNR5tPdNSzmd9xBwEP1Ei2cQssVExwz8 30I/lvzkH0cYl+fM46AsR9dnT038/xBYysT0PkPYUTVOQE6m25Ok6cWXOdS6aNBKuios gcq7+KBThabMk3B4NvYilsQ4CNuuKqFUm4Auc8aMJM1YzCOzHWeeJp0TRod1tKATqmnL J/vg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIcgSDcQwGgcZDJYosvIiLgcuSsTS7M6MQqkPEA66lI1TypojOiU86eNEMrws6Y9A== X-Received: by 10.37.79.87 with SMTP id d84mr8934703ybb.49.1464366767454; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from margarets-air-3.home (pool-72-74-19-153.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [72.74.19.153]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u130sm5777293ywa.17.2016.05.27.09.32.46 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 27 May 2016 09:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Margaret Cullen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Margaret Cullen In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:32:46 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <98B6DD67-33A0-4567-AEC6-B63E1D8EF3A8@gmail.com> References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> To: Donald Eastlake X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:32:49 -0000 > On May 27, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Donald Eastlake = wrote: >=20 > The policy was very simply to hold meetings to roughly equalize the > travel burden on the people who were actually attending the meetings. > It had nothing to do with diversity. Asia was added to the rotation, > first as one out of 5 (2-2-1) and then as one out of 3 (1-1-1) after > Asia attendance actually increased, NOT due to any sort of diversity > policy or marketing effort. I think that was a good policy, one > oriented to getting work done. Buenos Aires was a stark exception to > this policy. This matches my understanding as well. We started going to Asia because = it wasn=E2=80=99t fair that the Asian participants (who were _already = actively participating_) were shouldering a larger travel burden than = attendees from North America and Europe. Before we regularly start traveling to other regions of the world on a = regular basis as a means of increasing the geographical diversity of our = attendees, i would like to see two things happen: (1) I would like us to use Buenos Aires as an experiment and actually = track how many of the local first-time attendees continue to be active = participants (write to mailing lists, author drafts, attend other = meetings in person or remotely) over the next 6-to-12 months, so that we = can see if traveling to a new region of the world actually works to = recruit more participants from that area. (2) Discuss, within the IETF, whether the costs of doing this (financial = and logistical) are worth the benefits, AFTER we know what those = benefits are from completing step 1. Margaret From nobody Fri May 27 09:39:31 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A67512D731; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:39:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.791 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=thinkingcat.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U8It6VHZjsWn; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D8B512B054; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E01EA2640A1; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:39:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=thinkingcat.com; h=from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=thinkingcat.com; bh=X bVDKVwK632sirPdA6zFhFbxMjg=; b=A0g1lgQyCWk1FCgvYd6xUzKaaTv///Rk+ r3Bf/aAR4K9MMLcsZTh3vYty7sCXJoN+cP/FEaDH/fDM1O3m0aVNItC4acO0ZD6f H2R7zk4uC4swA0blv1EPhzIv5bEZjjqooksLVTEEgfYBnz2VLPD7hNzh0aqRu82/ P614qtl/wY= Received: from [192.168.1.5] (pool-72-86-47-69.clppva.fios.verizon.net [72.86.47.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: leslie@oceanpurl.net) by homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E725D264057; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:39:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Leslie Daigle" To: "Ted Hardie" Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:39:24 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234) Archived-At: Cc: IAOC , recentattendees@ietf.org, IETF , IETF Announcement List , 95all@ietf.org Subject: [Recentattendees] IAOC response to question of clarification Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:39:29 -0000 Ted, In relation to the IAOC=E2=80=99s message of May 17, you asked: > In reading their message, I noted that they said "Singapore can = > function as a meeting location for IETF100". It was not clear to me, = > however, what the scope of that assessment was. I have asked the IAOC = > to clarify if that assessment was of only the working meetings or if = > it included assessing the usual accommodations for families and = > partners (or even included an assessment of whether it was suitable = > for a gala occasion, given the 100th) Discussion has moved along considerably since, but I wanted to give you = an answer to clarify what the IAOC used as its parameters in the review = that lead to the message of May 17. The IAOC has to date focused on the suitability of venues/countries for = meeting purposes, but not explicitly for suitability of meeting = attendees bringing companions, family members, etc. That is the limit = of what the IETF has asked us to explicitly plan for. This is not to = suggest that the concerns in the current discussions about companions, = family members, and so on are not important. It's just to recognize the = edges of the constraints we believed we were working under. As discussed on the IETF@ mailing list, if the IETF community wants to = change the range of what we are looking for, we=E2=80=99d like the discus= sion = to be contributed to the mtgvenue mailing list discussion of = draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process. We think that such = discussion is important and valuable, and look forward to clear = direction from the community on this topic for the future. At the same time, we are completely aware that none of that can = happen in time to address this current issue. WRT the question of the IETF 100 as gala opportunity =E2=80=94 honestly, = we = haven=E2=80=99t gotten to that. Something of that scale probably would n= ot be = considered without a specific proposal from a sponsor for it, which we = don=E2=80=99t have. Since we didn't have such a sponsor, we never even = considered trying to do such a thing for IETF 100. This is not because = it never occurred to us that 100 might be a milestone for some. But it = was not our focus, and without having optimized for it we concluded that = we should treat 100 as just another meeting. So that's what we did. If people really want to have a significant recognition of a milestone = of numbers of meetings, we of course would entertain suggestions on how = to do that in a way that is suitably inclusive of participants, both in = attendance or remote, and that is agnostic of the actual meeting's = location. But to do that responsibly, we'd also have to ensure that it = was sponsored in the way that was necessary. Leslie, for the IAOC. -- = ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Daigle Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC ldaigle@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- On 18 May 2016, at 19:32, Ted Hardie wrote: > First, I'd like to thank the IAOC for going to the community for > commentary on this issue. I believe that the IAOC is working toward = > being > more transparent with the community, and I think this is an important = > step. > > Secondly, I'd like to note publicly that I have asked the IAOC a = > clarifying > question. In reading their message, I noted that they said "Singapore = > can > function as a meeting location for IETF100". It was not clear to me, > however, what the scope of that assessment was. I have asked the IAOC = > to > clarify if that assessment was of only the working meetings or if it > included assessing the usual accommodations for families and partners = > (or > even included an assessment of whether it was suitable for a gala = > occasion, > given the 100th). > > Personally, I did and do support the conclusion that it is suitable = > for a > working meeting. The issues in Singapore might occur with public = > displays > of affection between members of same sex couples, family rights issues = > with > an accompanying spouse or children, or with interactions with police. = > None > are common working group experiences. A single individual, traveling > alone, is simply unlikely to be affected. > > I cannot support, however, a conclusion that it meets the other = > roles. > Traveling with my son to territories where my marriage and parentage = > might > not be recognized involves at minimum both a lot of paperwork = > (bringing > birth certificates, judge's orders, letters allowing me to make = > medical > decisions) and some risk. I simply would not, personally, do that to = > allow > him to attend an IETF, and I believe the same to be true for other = > families > like ours. > > I am not yet sure whether I am agreeing with the IAOC, disagreeing = > with the > IAOC, or we simply are not yet agreed on what the problem is. I = > understand > that they will discuss the matter in their upcoming meeting next = > Wednesday, > and I look forward to a response sometime after then. > > Lastly, I want to point to a comment I made to the venue selection = > list: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/venue-selection/YJXG4WtJKyjUrrRT7= 8hOR4Mzn-c. > The most salient piece is this: > > The institution of the companion program has increased the visibility = > of >> families joining IETF participants, and it is clear that some = >> participants >> see venues that are friendly to family travel as a benefit. But it's = >> not >> currently clear where that accommodation falls in site selection or = >> where >> it should. To clarify that, I suspect that the IAOC will ultimately = >> need >> to lead a community discussion on the extent to which the = >> accommodation of >> accompanying family members should be considered in site selection. >> >> How to factor specific issues in this category into our meeting = >> planning is >> part of what came up for Singapore, but the question does not really = >> end >> there. It touches not just on pretty much every aspect of diversity, = >> but >> on basic issues of travel freedom. While many of us and our families = >> have >> a relatively unfettered access to tourist travel, for some of our >> colleagues the ability to get a business travel visa to a specific >> destination in no way guarantees that their family could get tourist = >> visas >> to accompany them to a specific site. >> >> As I said in that message, I believe we need a community discussion = >> of > that larger issue, and I look forward to contributing to it when it = > occurs. > > regards, > > Ted Hardie > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:14 PM, IAOC Chair = > wrote: > >> On April 7, 2016, the IAOC announced that IETF 100 scheduled for = >> November >> 2017 will be held in Singapore. This venue, as any other, was = >> announced as >> soon as it was under contract and thus secured. Following this >> announcement, concerns were raised about anti-LGBT laws in Singapore = >> that >> the IAOC was not aware of. We apologise for missing this. >> >> The IAOC took the action to review the current committed plan for = >> IETF >> 100, and also to review our meeting planning procedures to ensure = >> that we >> have input at appropriate points to ensure issues are identified and >> addressed before contracts are signed and announcements made. The = >> process >> updates are in progress, and an outline of the current update is = >> copied >> below. Our focus here is on bringing IETF 100 to closure. >> >> Having reviewed the Singapore proposal in the light of the plenary = >> input, >> we have a proposal for moving forward and would like community input = >> =E2=80=94 see >> below. >> >> >> Review >> >> The IAOC meetings committee reviewed the options for IETF 100, = >> including >> investigating costs and possibilities of moving the meeting to a = >> different >> location. In keeping with the updated process outlined below, they = >> checked >> with official advisory sources and consulted with specialty travel >> services, frequent travelers, and local representatives about the = >> concerns >> that have been raised. The input received from those sources is = >> consistent >> with the text on http://travel.state.gov [1]. >> >>> From that research, at a strictly practical level, the IAOC believes = >>> that >> it is possible to have a successful meeting in Singapore. The IAOC >> proposes that holding the meeting in Singapore is the best option for = >> IETF >> 100 at this time. >> >> Next Step: >> >> The IAOC would like to hear from the community by June 1st, 2016 on >> barriers to holding a successful meeting in Singapore. Responses = >> should be >> directed to venue-selection@ietf.org >> >> >> Again, we apologize for the failures in the venue selection process = >> that >> took place here and we are moving to enhance that process, to avoid = >> this >> type of error in the future. >> >> Leslie Daigle, for the IAOC. >> >> [1] Relevant text from http://travel.state.gov : >> >> "While the Singapore government has stated that it will not enforce >> this section of the penal code, the law remains on the statute = >> books. >> Singapore does not recognize same-sex unions. LGBT individuals may >> have difficulty gaining employment in certain sectors of the civil >> service." >> >> >> [2] Appendix: Updated Process >> N.B.: These are draft procedures being further refined as we speak. = >> For >> more information and input on the overall meeting venue selection = >> process >> document, please join the mtgvenue@ietf.org mailing list. >> >> IETF meeting venues are selected through a process which involves >> several steps and numerous specific criteria. The IAOC and its = >> Meeting >> Committee are in the process of better documenting these steps in the >> Internet-Draft draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process. >> Based on the experience the following changes have been introduced to >> the draft: >> >> Section 3.3.1: >> >> o Review available travel information (such as >> https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country.html) for = >> issues >> that would be counter to our principles on inclusiveness etc. >> [Mandatory] >> >> And these steps have been added to the process covered in Section 3.5 >> of the draft: >> >> D. The Meetings Committee consults Official Advisory Sources, = >> consults >> with speciality travel services, frequent travelers and local >> contacts, to determine if there are barriers to holding a successful >> meeting in the target cities. >> >> E. The IAOC asks the community whether there are any barriers to >> holding a successful meeting in the target cities. >> >> As covered in the draft, these steps will occur very early in the >> venue selection process =E2=80=93 at least 3 years prior. For the curr= ent = >> set >> of meetings being planned, the timing of the steps will be driven by >> contract schedule and will occur before future contract signing. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Recentattendees mailing list >> Recentattendees@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees >> From nobody Fri May 27 11:07:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B059212DC1E for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 11:07:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.176 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.176 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NzO8Bb0BVPQp for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 11:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plwbeout18-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtp18-05-2.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.193.190]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4012A12DC2C for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 11:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([173.201.193.154]) by p3plwbeout18-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with bizsmtp id zW7T1s0043LLKp101W7TaS; Fri, 27 May 2016 11:07:27 -0700 X-SID: zW7T1s0043LLKp101 Received: (qmail 26466 invoked by uid 99); 27 May 2016 18:07:27 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" X-Originating-IP: 68.173.1.196 User-Agent: Workspace Webmail 6.2.9 Message-Id: <20160527110726.23960f87a7c01f36cb042bedb72edf07.ce96706eb1.wbe@email18.godaddy.com> From: "Jamie Baxter" To: "Margaret Cullen" , "Keith Moore" Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:07:26 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 18:07:38 -0000
Please forgive my abrupt intrusion and inaugural offering into t= his conversation.

I would first offer that it is = extremely encouraging to see this portion of the Internet's technical commu= nity having this debate and I applaud it. I do believe ICANN could expand t= heir understanding of the issues a great deal from what you are covering he= re as they continue to explore new meeting sites as well. Fingers crossed t= hey begin to soon. 

In addition to just looki= ng within the IETF membership, may I also suggest reaching out to Human Rig= hts Watch or ILGA (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans & Inters= ex Association) for further documentation of the real world implications fa= cing members of the gay community in all countries around the world. Most e= specially if this becomes an issue you intend to track moving forward. I tr= ust they can give you a local perspective based on their LGBTQI networks on= the ground worldwide. Not only does ILGA produce an annual State Sponsored= Homophobia Report, but they are also highly involved in LGBTQI matters wit= hin the Universal Periodic Reviews (UPR) taking place at the United Nations= , which highlight many of the injustices occurring around the world.
<= div>
Happy to share contacts for ILGA & HRW if it would b= e helpful.

Jamie

Jamie Baxter
= VP of Marketing
dotgay LLC
307 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1807
New York= , NY 10001
212-235-5154
jamie@dot= gay.com
www.dotgay.com

= Please join us on Facebook at ww= w.facebook.dotgay.com
and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay 


=0A=0A=0A From nobody Sat May 28 11:29:16 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE0812B043; Sat, 28 May 2016 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uMSQlR5jHf0Q; Sat, 28 May 2016 11:29:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60D8012B00F; Sat, 28 May 2016 11:29:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.54.143.203] (unknown [88.128.80.167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ACA680257; Sat, 28 May 2016 20:28:59 +0200 (CEST) To: Lorenzo Colitti , Donald Eastlake References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> From: Fernando Gont X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <5749E35E.9030201@si6networks.com> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 15:28:46 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" , Margaret Cullen , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 18:29:13 -0000 On 05/28/2016 02:53 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Donald Eastlake > wrote: > > > the IETF has had a geographic diversity policy > > for a long time, while other forms of diversity were represented less/later. > > No, the IETF has NOT had a geographic diversity policy for its > meetings for a long time. > > Maybe we disagree on what the term geographic diversity means? To me, a > policy that says "we schedule meetings on three continents because > that's where our participants are" makes it easier for people from > diverse locations to participate, and thus is a policy intended to > facilitate geographic diversity. What's curious about this approach is that folks don't argue or object it, whereas e.g. none in their right mind would argue something like "we mostly prefer 'straight' people because that's what most of our participants are". Similarly, some folks argue that that before the IETF has scheduled meetings in say, latinamerica, latinamerica should have a sensible number of people -- whereas none in their right mind would argue "there should be a sensible number of active LGBT participants before discussing the IETF 100 venue issue". It would seem to me that there are some groups where diversity is meant to be applied, but others to which different "principles" apply. -- but if all this is done in the name of diversity, one would expect consistency, regardless of the specify "minority" that is affected. e.g., I haven't seen an email flood regarding why latinamerica isn't included in the rotation, or a formal response from anyone regarding that. (Note: I'm not arguing in favor or against meeing in LATAM... just talking about consistency here). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Sat May 28 14:25:57 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E237A12D131; Sat, 28 May 2016 14:25:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G4UHHL8OTOXE; Sat, 28 May 2016 14:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55E5F12D130; Sat, 28 May 2016 14:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.54.143.203] (unknown [88.128.80.167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59D51800F1; Sat, 28 May 2016 23:25:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Fernando Gont To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <5749E35E.9030201@si6networks.com> <67e1079c-0937-d09a-79a5-a6c0487a3285@joelhalpern.com> X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <5749FEF5.7020509@si6networks.com> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 17:26:29 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <67e1079c-0937-d09a-79a5-a6c0487a3285@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 21:25:55 -0000 On 05/28/2016 03:34 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Fernando, > Your response assumes that it is proven that moving to > less-participating locations increases long term participation from > those locales. No, it doesn't. Actually, I don't know. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. My point is that, for other aspects of "diversity", no measurements were expected/requested regarding whether going to a venue that is "friendly" to that community increases the participation of such community. -- That's essentially my point: there doesn't seem to be consistency here. Not sure why location should be a special case. Maybe some forms of diversity are just not desirable? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Sun May 29 23:13:22 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE3312D11B; Sun, 29 May 2016 23:13:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZIO-3UvCxJPE; Sun, 29 May 2016 23:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3326812B044; Sun, 29 May 2016 23:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id a136so70237388wme.0; Sun, 29 May 2016 23:13:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FEzn0wSZ3uIJiP4YRYHrUPSjHlWZaU5ry4yZMeMDkxs=; b=xY2CZNOUbYCPXoTtbJrqyf8Z6J1m74AK3ahDSheD/81eCgotQjX4WzVnLH53BBaMdu B7vTty/2a+cO+kw+KmTZBjMrfC1WqatuGOqYa7+ytlYP2DIpSl3pQCXLcaQ+ujQBVkiR ST1/YiKawT872CQ9avdU6f6jX1dDKD/dDM0UzdlArbKHmmryWK0rzLbl/a2raB5pWOP2 0CoDOwf9ywezHidlDEkE1kUCFywYX/nybfmnMToSFOgmMKiiNolRQbiDEbQqjC0zdORI KDocn1CgiZRfU52xB1QxGQgiRCoyOsSL9myhUUeSPOte5upg22wj4N5CIFIjdOfPNQLO atBg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FEzn0wSZ3uIJiP4YRYHrUPSjHlWZaU5ry4yZMeMDkxs=; b=JespV/znwRGCJNDK9Mdhv/+2OJATI2srcVp7h/AxV6OqXv8e3zoMfk+XJq+BmQN1gW fkPruv4ygIB0vZ8JR79aila3csY1Z90wheFWl8ltRMjYpC06kLz308fdjKu6/i0L/zCj qASD3eqG2XBu2M6a2jfnBGHDMxmK7K2jQxwgwFy4dA8t5m8onFJpBqwskU9HXaFAR6H8 CWANJnuieNZusYgmeGQde85XBC7PHrhCEiJ2qr6Co/wP5y+NCLyOkF2z0mj/powml3pC NzsVRf9B+hvE2QwJt+X33OU3Euff6iZGWZzN8JxQEzLrqKwWCcHoxSfKBtITpZh3nekq mgSA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJKQyuN4Re9Feqf+7z0OHE3GwZA4QStdmNejMtLDcVnJV6Vcz4eDJfFMjoUP0v7hg== X-Received: by 10.28.217.79 with SMTP id q76mr8743400wmg.83.1464588797552; Sun, 29 May 2016 23:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.4.187.176] ([82.102.169.113]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k62sm21939819wmb.7.2016.05.29.23.13.13 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 29 May 2016 23:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Yoav Nir In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 09:13:14 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <5749E35E.9030201@si6networks.com> <67e1079c-0937-d09a-79a5-a6c0487a3285@joelhalpern.com> To: John C Klensin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: Fernando Gont , recentattendees@ietf.org, "Joel M. Halpern" , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 06:13:21 -0000 On 30 May 2016, at 2:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote: >=20 > --On Saturday, May 28, 2016 2:34 PM -0400 "Joel M. Halpern" > wrote: >=20 >> Fernando, >> Your response assumes that it is proven that moving to >> less-participating locations increases long term participation >> from those locales. There are also indications from other >> data that it is not particularly effective. Thus, while your >> view is a reasonable hypothesis, it will take time and >> measurements to confirm it. >=20 > Let me take Joel's observation about the particular BA > experiment a bit further. If, independent of who showed up at > that meeting, it isn't followed by a significant spike in > long-term IETF participation and contributions from the region, > I think people who say "go there in spite of the fact that there > hasn't been a lot of participation from the region because > participation will increase" are going to have a very hard time > making that case... for either a return to Latin America or for > any other region. We have run this experiment before. The IETF met in Korea in 2004. = I=E2=80=99ve just counted, and in IETF 93, 94, and 95 there were 32, 41, = and 17 participants from Korea respectively. Whether this can be = attributed to our meeting or to the ascendance of the Korean high-tech = industry or to the greater involvement of Korean universities is = debatable, and I have no idea how we can ever determine this. It does = show the effect of geographic distance and cost. Going from Korea to = Prague is difficult enough. Going to Buenos Aires halved the = participation compared to Prague. >> I do note that many of our regular participants found BA >> to be simply too much (by whatever measures they use) and >> chose not to come. That is an observed cost that also must be >> factored in. >=20 > That drop in attendance, and overall lower attendance, are > significant for other reasons, but, at least to me, further > raise the bar for "going to this new place will help the IETF" > arguments. It seems that in general the European meetings have the highest = attendance, mostly because obtaining a visa is more straightforward for = people from India and Africa compared to obtaining a visa for the US. US = meetings are a close second. Other regions have relatively poor = attendance, although Yokohama was surprisingly well-attended. >> Also note that we did chose to conduct the experiment. >> So I think your comparison is quite a ways off the mark. >=20 > Indeed. I think we=E2=80=99ll need to wait for at least two years before we can = declare this experiment a success or a failure. Yoav From nobody Mon May 30 17:42:20 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B33B12D58A for ; Mon, 30 May 2016 17:42:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.887 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=standardstrack.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q1ybCkDRMKGj for ; Mon, 30 May 2016 17:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.247.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E0CA12D581 for ; Mon, 30 May 2016 17:42:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=YgkWkJLVNUWZKplaoAseDAWCGTwf5rzTvcYEjjBEock=; b=OWyyiKAM9jySCpEs4nO6WgqMyT Qps0p+BjhAzoRskdEFIC86ubOoGCRrxBxio0DEv1E+xMpvAEGwrlwtpHv4dejAMvD6zdQgcQuTVxD ZkKnms/zVNn7pIkkBO/HrICg6JvXFygs+rUueRhyzrZXRNs/tq+a+VgdN4OoMTOuDpno=; Received: from ip68-100-196-239.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.196.239]:57005 helo=[192.168.15.108]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86_1) (envelope-from ) id 1b7Xl4-0001ml-FF for recentattendees@ietf.org; Mon, 30 May 2016 17:42:17 -0700 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4E4BD3B7-95D6-4BAF-9CEE-E2A7F0C014B2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2 From: Eric Burger In-Reply-To: <7085c5948c544338a3559b5a27551316@XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com> Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 20:42:15 -0400 Message-Id: <5C8F692C-5E85-4824-85FA-F7DD1EE82A8C@standardstrack.com> References: <7085c5948c544338a3559b5a27551316@XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com> To: "recentattendees@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Authenticated-Sender: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: eburger@standardstrack.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] CIRI Human Rights Data Project X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 00:42:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4E4BD3B7-95D6-4BAF-9CEE-E2A7F0C014B2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 The theory being that meeting only in Northern Europe with an occasional = side trip to Australia or New Zealand would help? > On May 26, 2016, at 5:19 PM, David Benham (dbenham) = wrote: >=20 > Food for thought; instead of trying make a statement against certain = states or country, what about only/mostly patronizing those countries = that are setting the high-bar for human rights via their *actions* (vs = laws too often ignored) spanning a comprehensive set of criteria, = including all that extrajudicial activity (incarceration, torture, etc)? >=20 >=20 > For example, the Human Rights Data Project contains standards-based = quantitative information on government practices for a wide range of = internationally-recognized human rights, primarily drawing from the US = Department of State and Amnesty International reports. >=20 > http://www.humanrightsdata.com/p/faq.html > http://www.humanrightsdata.com/p/data-documentation.html >=20 > THE BEST & WORST OF 2010 > = http://www.humanrightsdata.com/2011/12/human-rights-in-2010-ciri-report.ht= ml > All 14 of CIRI=E2=80=99s individual indicators of particular human = rights can be summed into an overall human rights score. > The best score a country can receive is 30. >=20 > Top 13 Countries: > Denmark [30] > Iceland [30] > Austria [29] > New Zealand [29] > Norway [29] > Australia [28] > Belgium [28] > Finland [28] > Liechtenstein [28] > Luxembourg [28] > Netherlands [28] > San Marino [28] > Sweden [28] >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_4E4BD3B7-95D6-4BAF-9CEE-E2A7F0C014B2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXTN3nAAoJEORoZaSQsc1IMK8P/R7o5M3Bj0d6qKBmwh1PmL0P r1RITXaPtTVIaWvDf2Y7+tg4T36LiPM7uxCI6zdXJvtpQN658GeIiBMMGwzgkVv0 7X30iLypqHg/qz7byrkIV9mqVhi47Y6/VNuC3gHItM7bd9bE2IclxAVspejmK84G /tKj0DkBL3+Zf01ezGKrfQGCI8JJbEhfc8/yb0ukc2B8CXFG/a/xnHgvCXPtrAqn WhxSKPeeXfsuBImxcjYu6zkvIXfH8PE8spyisjBa570m2F+uPhomJrpIzXgEY9Dc KSQDdzyTU9ixtVGzgxhi4cXNOoMZirsy3ufw7H18nFGG/sIYMUFUn7MolRkV3KgZ GGVS6wxxpDsixXDcuVAuPPDtTWb94ljLmmclxsI7iDQPdGjiA7yeyfAssAeFRqqg CAaSoU0MIF6SC5h3dMduj6Ba2L1Wgq3oAscaXpYJLZ+AunyJzDOHQbcG8dWc5BAS peaKc9oW6x7RkhLfg5BJgnpwuFqBesMoZJpHv0Khaqd3ePCX3JzjnWOnwDOWMpLi bVHka8JhZL6dsP/AaaN2NVbd/TPbo5NRBJvd1N8+ZG6SxUIbnFFHf+l6eYx89d0M h0GgsLjmWDIf2S/0sRSkix+/zNUHf9adqkYeNd7gXwqSx0CHfngF+QLwUU+Tzp/0 x8Htn246VtnSfncvNACy =sitD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4E4BD3B7-95D6-4BAF-9CEE-E2A7F0C014B2-- From nobody Mon May 30 22:27:26 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB6912B054 for ; Mon, 30 May 2016 22:27:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NNRdtaq1eNt6 for ; Mon, 30 May 2016 22:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtptc.telefonica.com (smtptc.telefonica.com [195.76.34.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5282312B012 for ; Mon, 30 May 2016 22:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtptc.telefonica.com (tgtim3c04.telefonica.com [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336E0885AC; Tue, 31 May 2016 07:27:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESTGVMSP111.EUROPE.telefonica.corp (unknown [10.92.4.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ESTGVMSP111", Issuer "ESTGVMSP111" (not verified)) by smtptc.telefonica.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D3CA885AA; Tue, 31 May 2016 07:27:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.92.5.139) by tls.telefonica.com (10.92.6.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.266.1; Tue, 31 May 2016 07:27:16 +0200 Received: from DB4PR06MB0639.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.161.13.145) by DB4PR06MB0638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.161.13.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.506.2; Tue, 31 May 2016 05:27:14 +0000 Received: from DB4PR06MB0639.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.161.13.145]) by DB4PR06MB0639.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.161.13.145]) with mapi id 15.01.0506.011; Tue, 31 May 2016 05:27:14 +0000 From: PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ To: Eric Burger , "recentattendees@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] CIRI Human Rights Data Project Thread-Index: AQHRutVypeQftGAwbEyzZTin/QnEPp/SpgcA Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 05:27:14 +0000 Message-ID: <8AECDBA5-464C-4EB9-B4F6-CB9D02B21FF3@telefonica.com> References: <7085c5948c544338a3559b5a27551316@XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com> <5C8F692C-5E85-4824-85FA-F7DD1EE82A8C@standardstrack.com> In-Reply-To: <5C8F692C-5E85-4824-85FA-F7DD1EE82A8C@standardstrack.com> Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Content-Language: es-ES X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.16.0.160506 authentication-results: standardstrack.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;standardstrack.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=telefonica.com; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [195.235.92.36] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f6c3bcb2-1bee-4804-c899-08d38914399a x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB4PR06MB0638; 5:3rBQM1Np/37DLVtphRqOn/2jGPwqlFfmn4BuvjTBL1UMoU6Z+nQg+szNGZg9KDoXOWLpiJQEHs1aDuWwwQxgxj8W42r9aM8wx7ymQWvTKWNc1Sz4a7QbCehvAHTVNQqE4DNziPSRQImTM6Z/IUl+cQ==; 24:5nsiR50mszbXTTwevjvFVIM5dHVfiw6/1QgnrgveAJZR3BFdCz97YW7kDZJGIu1lagz1l1ipWOdmVLnSMlmnL9wf/lcjUZ9H4A9XLPQpcAY=; 7:uOnaSeVxMiVKrBMDHHotp5mO2hazmbwEsYrifVuW5VNPkg9NWBm/2l73UOxmp0gFdYROTsRbvxAoC0B8Wxg/5fK6PTVYkiYj52YdlvBBszRj9Ly7yJ0wggj0Hn4Yu7ZjlpEm9jkRVsjI3EK6lH5QjBc51tZm50HDspEeXUUQqKr27MAhzL75Wd225/gNW5jK x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB0638; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(95692535739014); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:DB4PR06MB0638; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB4PR06MB0638; x-forefront-prvs: 095972DF2F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(24454002)(59124004)(92566002)(2906002)(19300405004)(19273905006)(189998001)(66066001)(586003)(77096005)(83716003)(2900100001)(83506001)(54356999)(50986999)(107886002)(76176999)(8676002)(19580405001)(10400500002)(8936002)(19580395003)(82746002)(102836003)(81166006)(122556002)(3846002)(5001770100001)(106116001)(5002640100001)(87936001)(2501003)(11100500001)(3280700002)(5008740100001)(86362001)(5004730100002)(15975445007)(6116002)(33656002)(3660700001)(575784001)(36756003)(2950100001)(562404015)(104396002)(563064011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR06MB0638; H:DB4PR06MB0639.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <2E06F0FA6641114DB879141AEF9A59A6@eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 May 2016 05:27:14.6762 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9744600e-3e04-492e-baa1-25ec245c6f10 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB4PR06MB0638 X-OriginatorOrg: telefonica.com X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] CIRI Human Rights Data Project X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 05:27:24 -0000 V2l0aCBzb21lIG9mIHRob3NlIGNvdW50cmllcyBiZWluZyBpbiB0aGUgdmVyZ2Ugb2YgZGlzYXBw ZWFyaW5nIGZyb20gdGhlIGxpc3Qgd2hlbiB0aGUgbmV4dCBlbGVjdGlvbiBicmluZ3MgaW4gYSDi gJxmYXItcmlnaHQgc3VycHJpc2XigJ0gdG8gdGhlIHdvcmxk4oCmIEJlY2F1c2UgaGF2aW5nIGEg Z292ZXJubWVudCB3aXRoIFNTLUROQSB3b3VsZCBzb21laG93IGRpc3F1YWxpZnkgdGhlbeKApiBJ IGhvcGUNCg0KLS0tDQpEci4gUGVkcm8gQS4gQXJhbmRhIEd1dGnDqXJyZXoNCg0KVGVjaG5vbG9n eSBFeHBsb3JhdGlvbiAtDQpOZXR3b3JrIElubm92YXRpb24gJiBWaXJ0dWFsaXNhdGlvbg0KZW1h aWw6IHBlZHJvYSBkMHQgYXJhbmRhIEF0IHRlbGVmb25pY2EgZDB0IGNvbQ0KVGVsZWbDs25pY2Es IEludmVzdGlnYWNpw7NuIHkgRGVzYXJyb2xsbw0KQy8gWnVyYmFyw6FuLDEyDQoyODAxMCBNYWRy aWQsIFNwYWluDQoNCkZyYWdlbiBzaW5kIG5pY2h0IGRhLCB1bSBiZWFudHdvcnRldCB6dSB3ZXJk ZW4uDQpGcmFnZW4gc2luZCBkYSwgdW0gZ2VzdGVsbHQgenUgd2VyZGVuLg0KR2VvcmcgS3JlaXNs ZXINCg0KDQoNCi0tLS0tTWVuc2FqZSBvcmlnaW5hbC0tLS0tDQpEZTogUmVjZW50YXR0ZW5kZWVz IDxyZWNlbnRhdHRlbmRlZXMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZz4gZW4gbm9tYnJlIGRlIEVyaWMgQnVy Z2VyIDxlYnVyZ2VyQHN0YW5kYXJkc3RyYWNrLmNvbT4NCkZlY2hhOiBtYXJ0ZXMsIDMxIGRlIG1h eW8gZGUgMjAxNiwgMjo0Mg0KUGFyYTogInJlY2VudGF0dGVuZGVlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyIgPHJlY2Vu dGF0dGVuZGVlc0BpZXRmLm9yZz4NCkFzdW50bzogUmU6IFtSZWNlbnRhdHRlbmRlZXNdIENJUkkg SHVtYW4gUmlnaHRzIERhdGEgUHJvamVjdA0KDQo+VGhlIHRoZW9yeSBiZWluZyB0aGF0IG1lZXRp bmcgb25seSBpbiBOb3J0aGVybiBFdXJvcGUgd2l0aCBhbiBvY2Nhc2lvbmFsIHNpZGUgdHJpcCB0 byBBdXN0cmFsaWEgb3IgTmV3IFplYWxhbmQgd291bGQgaGVscD8NCj4NCj4+IE9uIE1heSAyNiwg MjAxNiwgYXQgNToxOSBQTSwgRGF2aWQgQmVuaGFtIChkYmVuaGFtKSA8ZGJlbmhhbUBjaXNjby5j b20+IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4NCj4+IEZvb2QgZm9yIHRob3VnaHQ7IGluc3RlYWQgb2YgdHJ5aW5nIG1h a2UgYSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgYWdhaW5zdCBjZXJ0YWluIHN0YXRlcyBvciBjb3VudHJ5LCB3aGF0IGFi b3V0IG9ubHkvbW9zdGx5IHBhdHJvbml6aW5nIHRob3NlIGNvdW50cmllcyB0aGF0IGFyZSBzZXR0 aW5nIHRoZSBoaWdoLWJhciBmb3IgaHVtYW4gcmlnaHRzIHZpYSB0aGVpciAqYWN0aW9ucyogKHZz IGxhd3MgdG9vIG9mdGVuIGlnbm9yZWQpIHNwYW5uaW5nIGEgY29tcHJlaGVuc2l2ZSBzZXQgb2Yg Y3JpdGVyaWEsIGluY2x1ZGluZyBhbGwgdGhhdCBleHRyYWp1ZGljaWFsIGFjdGl2aXR5IChpbmNh cmNlcmF0aW9uLCB0b3J0dXJlLCBldGMpPw0KPj4NCj4+DQo+PiBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgdGhlIEh1 bWFuIFJpZ2h0cyBEYXRhIFByb2plY3QgY29udGFpbnMgc3RhbmRhcmRzLWJhc2VkIHF1YW50aXRh dGl2ZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBvbiBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IHByYWN0aWNlcyBmb3IgYSB3aWRlIHJhbmdl IG9mIGludGVybmF0aW9uYWxseS1yZWNvZ25pemVkIGh1bWFuIHJpZ2h0cywgcHJpbWFyaWx5IGRy YXdpbmcgZnJvbSB0aGUgVVMgRGVwYXJ0bWVudCBvZiBTdGF0ZSBhbmQgQW1uZXN0eSBJbnRlcm5h dGlvbmFsIHJlcG9ydHMuDQo+Pg0KPj4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5odW1hbnJpZ2h0c2RhdGEuY29tL3Av ZmFxLmh0bWwNCj4+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaHVtYW5yaWdodHNkYXRhLmNvbS9wL2RhdGEtZG9jdW1l bnRhdGlvbi5odG1sDQo+Pg0KPj4gVEhFIEJFU1QgJiBXT1JTVCBPRiAyMDEwDQo+PiBodHRwOi8v d3d3Lmh1bWFucmlnaHRzZGF0YS5jb20vMjAxMS8xMi9odW1hbi1yaWdodHMtaW4tMjAxMC1jaXJp LXJlcG9ydC5odG1sDQo+PiBBbGwgMTQgb2YgQ0lSSeKAmXMgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBpbmRpY2F0b3Jz IG9mIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIgaHVtYW4gcmlnaHRzIGNhbiBiZSBzdW1tZWQgaW50byBhbiBvdmVyYWxs IGh1bWFuIHJpZ2h0cyBzY29yZS4NCj4+IFRoZSBiZXN0IHNjb3JlIGEgY291bnRyeSBjYW4gcmVj ZWl2ZSBpcyAzMC4NCj4+DQo+PiBUb3AgMTMgQ291bnRyaWVzOg0KPj4gRGVubWFyayBbMzBdDQo+ PiBJY2VsYW5kIFszMF0NCj4+IEF1c3RyaWEgWzI5XQ0KPj4gTmV3IFplYWxhbmQgWzI5XQ0KPj4g Tm9yd2F5IFsyOV0NCj4+IEF1c3RyYWxpYSBbMjhdDQo+PiBCZWxnaXVtIFsyOF0NCj4+IEZpbmxh bmQgWzI4XQ0KPj4gTGllY2h0ZW5zdGVpbiBbMjhdDQo+PiBMdXhlbWJvdXJnIFsyOF0NCj4+IE5l dGhlcmxhbmRzIFsyOF0NCj4+IFNhbiBNYXJpbm8gWzI4XQ0KPj4gU3dlZGVuIFsyOF0NCj4+DQo+ Pg0KPg0KDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQoNCkVzdGUgbWVuc2Fq ZSB5IHN1cyBhZGp1bnRvcyBzZSBkaXJpZ2VuIGV4Y2x1c2l2YW1lbnRlIGEgc3UgZGVzdGluYXRh cmlvLCBwdWVkZSBjb250ZW5lciBpbmZvcm1hY2nDs24gcHJpdmlsZWdpYWRhIG8gY29uZmlkZW5j aWFsIHkgZXMgcGFyYSB1c28gZXhjbHVzaXZvIGRlIGxhIHBlcnNvbmEgbyBlbnRpZGFkIGRlIGRl c3Rpbm8uIFNpIG5vIGVzIHVzdGVkLiBlbCBkZXN0aW5hdGFyaW8gaW5kaWNhZG8sIHF1ZWRhIG5v dGlmaWNhZG8gZGUgcXVlIGxhIGxlY3R1cmEsIHV0aWxpemFjacOzbiwgZGl2dWxnYWNpw7NuIHkv byBjb3BpYSBzaW4gYXV0b3JpemFjacOzbiBwdWVkZSBlc3RhciBwcm9oaWJpZGEgZW4gdmlydHVk IGRlIGxhIGxlZ2lzbGFjacOzbiB2aWdlbnRlLiBTaSBoYSByZWNpYmlkbyBlc3RlIG1lbnNhamUg cG9yIGVycm9yLCBsZSByb2dhbW9zIHF1ZSBub3MgbG8gY29tdW5pcXVlIGlubWVkaWF0YW1lbnRl IHBvciBlc3RhIG1pc21hIHbDrWEgeSBwcm9jZWRhIGEgc3UgZGVzdHJ1Y2Npw7NuLg0KDQpUaGUg aW5mb3JtYXRpb24gY29udGFpbmVkIGluIHRoaXMgdHJhbnNtaXNzaW9uIGlzIHByaXZpbGVnZWQg YW5kIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpbnRlbmRlZCBvbmx5IGZvciB0aGUgdXNlIG9m IHRoZSBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIG9yIGVudGl0eSBuYW1lZCBhYm92ZS4gSWYgdGhlIHJlYWRlciBvZiB0 aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCByZWNpcGllbnQsIHlvdSBhcmUgaGVyZWJ5 IG5vdGlmaWVkIHRoYXQgYW55IGRpc3NlbWluYXRpb24sIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbiBvciBjb3B5aW5n IG9mIHRoaXMgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBpcyBzdHJpY3RseSBwcm9oaWJpdGVkLiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2 ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlzIHRyYW5zbWlzc2lvbiBpbiBlcnJvciwgZG8gbm90IHJlYWQgaXQuIFBs ZWFzZSBpbW1lZGlhdGVseSByZXBseSB0byB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIHRoYXQgeW91IGhhdmUgcmVjZWl2 ZWQgdGhpcyBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIGluIGVycm9yIGFuZCB0aGVuIGRlbGV0ZSBpdC4NCg0KRXN0 YSBtZW5zYWdlbSBlIHNldXMgYW5leG9zIHNlIGRpcmlnZW0gZXhjbHVzaXZhbWVudGUgYW8gc2V1 IGRlc3RpbmF0w6FyaW8sIHBvZGUgY29udGVyIGluZm9ybWHDp8OjbyBwcml2aWxlZ2lhZGEgb3Ug Y29uZmlkZW5jaWFsIGUgw6kgcGFyYSB1c28gZXhjbHVzaXZvIGRhIHBlc3NvYSBvdSBlbnRpZGFk ZSBkZSBkZXN0aW5vLiBTZSBuw6NvIMOpIHZvc3NhIHNlbmhvcmlhIG8gZGVzdGluYXTDoXJpbyBp bmRpY2FkbywgZmljYSBub3RpZmljYWRvIGRlIHF1ZSBhIGxlaXR1cmEsIHV0aWxpemHDp8Ojbywg ZGl2dWxnYcOnw6NvIGUvb3UgY8OzcGlhIHNlbSBhdXRvcml6YcOnw6NvIHBvZGUgZXN0YXIgcHJv aWJpZGEgZW0gdmlydHVkZSBkYSBsZWdpc2xhw6fDo28gdmlnZW50ZS4gU2UgcmVjZWJldSBlc3Rh IG1lbnNhZ2VtIHBvciBlcnJvLCByb2dhbW9zLWxoZSBxdWUgbm9zIG8gY29tdW5pcXVlIGltZWRp YXRhbWVudGUgcG9yIGVzdGEgbWVzbWEgdmlhIGUgcHJvY2VkYSBhIHN1YSBkZXN0cnVpw6fDo28N Cg== From nobody Tue May 31 06:41:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1386912D1DC; Tue, 31 May 2016 06:40:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qxvrz7Y5PaDW; Tue, 31 May 2016 06:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agwhqht.amgreetings.com (agwhqht.amgreetings.com [207.58.192.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBD6E12D515; Tue, 31 May 2016 06:40:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com ([fe80::f5de:4c30:bc26:d70a]) by USCLES532.agna.amgreetings.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Tue, 31 May 2016 09:40:54 -0400 From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" To: John C Klensin , "Joel M. Halpern" , Fernando Gont Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Thread-Index: AQHRttH8UrBM/maGFUe4CZVoUTOlHZ/LqQwAgAAFxYCAAAsWAIAAGKcAgABbZACAAEetAIABZ4idgAEVzQCAAAGtAIAB5UAAgAI6XIA= Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 13:40:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <5749E35E.9030201@si6networks.com> <67e1079c-0937-d09a-79a5-a6c0487a3285@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.144.15.225] x-kse-attachmentfiltering-interceptor-info: protection disabled x-kse-serverinfo: USCLES532.agna.amgreetings.com, 9 x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean, bases: 5/31/2016 11:34:00 AM x-kse-dlp-scaninfo: Skipped Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" , "Ietf@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 13:40:59 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John C Klensin > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 7:32 PM > To: Joel M. Halpern; Fernando Gont > Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org; Ietf@Ietf. Org > Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF > 100 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --On Saturday, May 28, 2016 2:34 PM -0400 "Joel M. Halpern" > wrote: >=20 > > Fernando, > > Your response assumes that it is proven that moving to > > less-participating locations increases long term participation from > > those locales. There are also indications from other data that it is > > not particularly effective. Thus, while your view is a reasonable > > hypothesis, it will take time and measurements to confirm it. >=20 > Let me take Joel's observation about the particular BA experiment a bit > further. If, independent of who showed up at that meeting, it isn't foll= owed > by a significant spike in long-term IETF participation and contributions = from > the region, I think people who say "go there in spite of the fact that th= ere > hasn't been a lot of participation from the region because participation = will > increase" are going to have a very hard time making that case... for eith= er a > return to Latin America or for any other region. >=20 I think it is unreasonable to set the bar at MUST have long term significan= t spike in participation from a region after a single meeting being held th= ere. Without taking a position on whether meetings should be held in partic= ular locations, if the goal is to garner participation from a wider geograp= hic constituency then IETF needs to plan and invest to make that happen bey= ond simply holding a single meeting in the region. > > I do note that many of our regular participants found BA to be > > simply too much (by whatever measures they use) and chose not to come. > > That is an observed cost that also must be factored in. >=20 > That drop in attendance, and overall lower attendance, are significant fo= r > other reasons, but, at least to me, further raise the bar for "going to = this new > place will help the IETF" > arguments. >=20 That is a different but related discussion. > > Also note that we did chose to conduct the experiment. > > So I think your comparison is quite a ways off the mark. >=20 > Indeed. >=20 > john >=20 >=20