From nobody Wed Jun 8 06:56:40 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 9EB0912D1C0; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:56:32 -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: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 06:56:32 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective 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, 08 Jun 2016 13:56:32 -0000 This is a follow up to the discussion on holding IETF 100 in Singapore, arising from the issue of the existence of Singapore laws that discriminate against LGBTQ people. Jari, as IETF Chair, is sending a note outlining the forward-looking steps from the perspective of IETF community actions, so this note is focused on IAOC actions as part of the bigger context. The IAOC has carefully reviewed feedback from the community, available alternative venue options and consulted with the IESG. We have decided to keep the IETF 100 meeting in Singapore, while recognizing that the discussion of Singapore’s appropriateness as an IETF meeting site for other future meetings is not completed. We, and we believe the whole IETF, value and respect our LGBTQ participants and their families. It was and is not our intention to make them feel unwelcome at IETF 100. In making this decision, we recognize that it was our mistake in missing the issue in the first place. For that, again, we can only apologize. More detail about the decision process itself is outlined in detail below — this message has been difficult to structure in order to both clearly deliver the decision and provide detail about how we reached it, without burying the former in the important detail. I do want to thank everyone who has shared their knowledge and perspective in the discussion — I appreciate it has been difficult. And, there are significant substantive issues in this discussion that remain unresolved in the larger context beyond IETF 100. We have to move on with continued discussion and respectful engagement in order to determine the right answers for venues for future IETF meetings. As part of that, the IAOC remains committed to continue to address the larger context by: 1/ Listening. While it is important for the community to move on from the discussion of IETF 100, we in no way think this conversation about what we take into account when we do venue selection is completed. 2/ Not viewing this as a precedent for future meeting venue selection. This is a choice for IETF 100, and any future evaluation of Singapore or any other venues will be made in the light of whatever the IETF community decides are requirements for meeting locations in areas that discriminate against any members of our community. 3/ Selecting sites that support the advancement of the IETF mission 4/ Seeking clarity from the community about parameters for venue selection. Along with others in the community, we have asked the IETF Chair to formalize the MTGVENUE effort into a working group to produce a meeting selection BCP with consensus from the community about how to address diversity (of our community, of the laws in different parts of the world) as part of the selection criteria for meeting venues 5/ Improving our site selection process so that issues of which the community may be aware can be brought to light before we have signed contracts for a meeting. In characterizing Singapore as a place where he could not bring his own family, because of its laws, Ted Hardie asked at the IETF 95 plenary meeting that those who had made the decision to meet in Singapore not bring their families, either. In an earlier message, the IAOC outlined that it 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 understanding has now obviously evolved, and we understand better situations where companions are necessary. We note Ted's request. Individual participants here will have to make their own decisions about how to answer it. As a group we are focusing on making sure we improve our processes so that we don’t surprise or undermine any segments of our community. In taking a broader view and reflecting on issues where IAOC announcements may have surprised the community (not solely related to IETF 100, nor just meeting venues) we also consider that there is merit in a broader review of the IASA structure, 10+ years after its inception. At the same time, the practical demands of the meeting arrangements discussion and the IANA-related work at the IETF Trust need to be satisfied first. So we plan to initiate the evaluation of IASA work before the end of this year. The IAOC’s decision making process ---------------------------------- We (IAOC) don’t believe the discussion of Singapore’s appropriateness as an IETF meeting site (beyond IETF 100) is completed. There are many strong positions: we have heard people say that Singapore’s laws clearly violate human rights and it is unconscionable to propose meeting there; we have heard people say that our meeting locations are about getting the work done and if national politics enter into it the IETF is lost beyond any hope of relevancy; people urge that we cannot avoid places where people are oppressed without denying the important contributions of those oppressed; some worry that we cannot attend to any particular oppression because once we start there will be no place left for us to meet. All of these views have arguments in their favour; determining an outcome to the conversation is well beyond the scope of the IAOC (we look to the IETF Chair/IESG for determination of IETF policy), and they cannot be reconciled to a clear pointer to what to do now. Against that backdrop, we perceived no obvious answer for where to hold IETF 100. Absent a clear answer to the question of suitability of decision criteria for/against Singapore, and having reviewed resources to ascertain that everyone would be able to travel to Singapore with a reasonable expectation of personal safety and respect, the IAOC was guided by a few principles. First, we obviously wanted to take into account all the feedback we received, both on- and off-list. We could only take it into account, rather than reflect it, because we received responses from many different people who identified in many different ways, and sometimes those responses were diametrically opposed to others. Second, we did not believe it was practically possible to consider alternative dates only 18 months before the meeting was to happen, especially because we already have a challenge in ensuring we have adequate support for the ordinary contract negotiation that needs to happen; so we decided that we had to stick with the dates we had. Third, we believed that it was necessary that, if we were going to move, we would need to move to a site where we had already had an unambiguously successful meeting, otherwise we could run the risk of substituting one potentially unsuitable venue for another. With less than 18 months to the meeting (practically no time for planning purposes), we focused on specific sites we had been to before. (We were also somewhat worried about the financial effects on the IETF of moving the meeting. We have had throughout strong support from our meeting sponsor. So we believed that these effects could have been blunted but not completely eliminated when undertaking a new negotiation, since it would be clear to anyone with whom we were negotiating that we did not have a lot of options.) Finally, we determined that that this meeting should take place in Asia if at all possible, to honor the 1-1-1* policy in 2017. None of the candidate sites in Asia could accommodate us on the dates we already had, making Singapore the only Asian venue available. There were a number of potential sites in Europe and North America. Part of our problem is that the requirements for meeting venue selection were sketchily defined, and reasonable people can perceive different priorities; we look forward to successful conclusion of MTGVENUE work to remove ambiguity from those requirements. We acknowledge that much of this could have been avoided if we had attempted earlier the strategy of calling out potential venues early, to see whether there are problems. We regret very much that we did not do that, and we shall certainly heed that lesson in the future. Leslie, for the IAOC. From nobody Wed Jun 8 06:58:32 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietf.org Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:f33:c4f4:68f7:e496:c2a8] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:f33:c4f4:68f7:e496:c2a8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F49A12D1EA; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:58:24 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: IETF Chair Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:58:19 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0DAA04D6-03FE-444D-ABF9-4A1CF2F7DFC9@ietf.org> To: IETF Announcement List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: [Recentattendees] actions related to improving IETF meeting selections X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" , chair@ietf.org List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:58:28 -0000 The discussion about the Singapore meeting has been difficult for us. = The IETF needs a meeting that we are generally happy with. Various past = mistakes and new learnings aside, we are now in a situation where no = decision in this space will be perfect. We knew that no matter what = choice is made, there will be groups of people who feel they are = unfairly impacted. But perhaps the most important things are that, long-term, the community = gets to carefully weigh what they expect from meeting locations, that we = all learn from more about the various challenges discussed, we are an = open organisation for everybody including minorities, and that we = improve our processes going forward. It is also crucial that the IETF = remains an organisation that can do its technical work, and be open to = all of our global participants in a fair manner. And obviously be = capable of arranging our operations in the real world, in areas that our = participants come from. What follows is what we are proposing as additional onward work to = address the issues highlighted in this discussion: o The IAOC as well as members of the community have asked me to = charter a working group to continue the discussion of the detailed = meeting criteria document = (draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process). All criteria are on = the table for discussion. The working group proposal is being reviewed = by the IESG, and will be out for community review shortly. A WG meeting = in Berlin is planned. o Develop a BCP that defines the community-backed, official policy for = the overall strategy of geographic meeting distribution (our current = strategy is referred to as 1-1-1*). An initial draft for this is in the = works. o Arrange a special session in Berlin to discuss the role of human = rights, visas, and other aspects of international meeting arrangements. = We have begun to work to find outside experts in this space who can join = a conversation. (If you have suggestions, let us know.) o Continue the new practice of informing the community of potential = future meeting destinations, and collecting =93crowd-sourced=94 input on = their suitability. o Commit to a proper, informed process to identify issues that any = subgroup (including but not only the LGBTQ community) has with our site = selections. o Commit to returning to the 1-1-1* meeting model =97 or what the = eventual BCP policy is -- for Asia for the remainder of the decade. For = the last decade, we=92ve only met there 4 times. o Commit to holding all other currently planned meetings as they are, = and focusing on making the most appropriate decisions about future = meetings, as informed by community input. o While we do not believe that we should respond to the current = discussions merely with a suggestion of conducting our meeting = virtually, it is a clear direction that IETF and other organisations = will be using more virtual collaboration tools in the future. The IESG = has discussed taking initial steps with regards to bigger virtual = meetings. Experiences from this could drive further efforts. Jari Arkko, IETF Chair= From nobody Wed Jun 8 08:26:32 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 6834A12D9E4; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:26:29 -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 MS7kiMj-hEaf; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (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 C650012D9E1; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:26:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id v199so69232942wmv.0; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 08:26:26 -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=jxZaaIsEPf1tmUqQ8cbHT+zNScFuEU+055VgVrrxddA=; b=HS2BXw7cIG+Lg+e0RiRMFzK3QimFqdVnI3i3pdIB2gFC8GXAlQBOIprnJMgflNeK2a yBoDxnNVPpYLQzixNpUH2EClT2p1IUiuAodWQDf+1p0dMBsk0Bsaz1w8BpmMAWIAN33s FL783mgYLe3y1MtH0XWzWwBjqy7ROvSnISSaARXzoC/PYakOGhvJ/neQ0Ys0oCE6jVBB 8U4bFDhBjoCLI8OQQlrmp8ikZuAFLc8pPLs8sM3Q42JaXsOifS9yf5UasoAY/weETD7P AXauPLLeOs3vYpixWCIXOMNo3B2a0yQt5AXyXrXduSJqOJ2Qiq9kfKFiy5506Vyj13j2 SpvA== 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=jxZaaIsEPf1tmUqQ8cbHT+zNScFuEU+055VgVrrxddA=; b=HawEtFmkBMULHXtMl5wb+4fsbV/4a4w3vA36kywvaWyLJrRPERw666DRrNxWZBxIaR E93816yzX8je/G3Gh2pF8Rem6hhCfUy9OBmp8QH9I3ITv7qK2897+E5LS+iF/jTnE+IB xesDL7KuurgMGcVH8jKFyKQ9qT7COnO6/HD5pXF/BVTHICtz9XjUQiO26W6mqbMzp64x sIttJbluxsINbzPfOuOTZI4zA+rHNfadLzZsc1bCnZjXYVWqDv8OIUqdIUCxF7I5YLNi VwKrPh6i60gwEa+1VAfirfZ/esjebHmkM/dg27rtNpjP923NZmaJv8+gYFX8cxqn4R5b cWPg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJk6QrEOTPvwU62/8tCKWzMgUdYew+D/BvThvSeBOPlAq9X2pOgkG8Dhy/yLBTgHw== X-Received: by 10.194.18.34 with SMTP id t2mr5016792wjd.180.1465399584957; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from macbook-pro.mshome.net ([95.35.61.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y1sm2041314wjl.31.2016.06.08.08.26.08 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jun 2016 08:26:24 -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: <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:25:21 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, IETF Announcement List Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective 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, 08 Jun 2016 15:26:29 -0000 I doubt they will be able or willing to help much. =E2=80=9CYour country = is evil and discriminatory. What do you have to say about this?=E2=80=9D = Besides, we=E2=80=99d be talking to the executive branch, while change = tends to come from either the legislative or judicial. I also don=E2=80=99= t believe it=E2=80=99s the job of the IETF to give =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80= =9D to officials of host countries. Making a habit of this will make us = about as welcome as the globalization protesters were 15 years ago. Deciding not to meet somewhere is one thing. Extending the agenda of = meetings from just technical work to technical work plus political = protest is not a good idea. The good outcome coming out of this is the decision to crowd-source the = vetting of possible destinations such as [1]. A message such as this = about Singapore would have prevented quite a bit of =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80= =9D for the IAOC. Yoav [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg97908.html > On 8 Jun 2016, at 5:13 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ = wrote: >=20 > Thanks Leslie, >=20 > Trying to get a positive side out of this debate, I will suggest the = IAOC to work with ISOC in order to contact the Singapore government and = try to get some statement about their future intend with LGTBQ = discriminatory laws. Probably we need to work together with locals, = other organizations, etc. >=20 > At this way we could have some =E2=80=9Cadditional=E2=80=9D success as = outcome for this meeting, or otherwise, make sure that the relevant = authorities get some kind of =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80=9D during the = event, in case there is no progress to change/cancel those laws. >=20 > Regards, > Jordi >=20 >=20 > -----Mensaje original----- > De: ietf en nombre de IAOC Chair = > Responder a: > Fecha: mi=C3=A9rcoles, 8 de junio de 2016, 15:56 > Para: IETF Announcement List > CC: , > Asunto: IETF 100, IAOC perspective >=20 >> This is a follow up to the discussion on holding IETF 100 in = Singapore, arising from the issue of the existence of Singapore laws = that discriminate against LGBTQ people. >>=20 >> Jari, as IETF Chair, is sending a note outlining the forward-looking = steps from the perspective of IETF community actions, so this note is = focused on IAOC actions as part of the bigger context. >>=20 >> The IAOC has carefully reviewed feedback from the community, = available alternative venue options and consulted with the IESG. We = have decided to keep the IETF 100 meeting in Singapore, while = recognizing that the discussion of Singapore=E2=80=99s appropriateness = as an IETF meeting site for other future meetings is not completed. >>=20 >> We, and we believe the whole IETF, value and respect our LGBTQ = participants and their families. It was and is not our intention to = make them feel unwelcome at IETF 100. In making this decision, we = recognize that it was our mistake in missing the issue in the first = place. For that, again, we can only apologize. >>=20 >> More detail about the decision process itself is outlined in detail = below =E2=80=94 this message has been difficult to structure in order to = both clearly deliver the decision and provide detail about how we = reached it, without burying the former in the important detail. >>=20 >> I do want to thank everyone who has shared their knowledge and = perspective in the discussion =E2=80=94 I appreciate it has been = difficult. And, there are significant substantive issues in this = discussion that remain unresolved in the larger context beyond IETF 100. = We have to move on with continued discussion and respectful engagement = in order to determine the right answers for venues for future IETF = meetings. As part of that, the IAOC remains committed to continue to = address the larger context by: >>=20 >> 1/ Listening. While it is important for the community to move on = from the discussion of IETF 100, we in no way think this conversation = about what we take into account when we do venue selection is completed. >>=20 >> 2/ Not viewing this as a precedent for future meeting venue = selection. This is a choice for IETF 100, and any future evaluation of = Singapore or any other venues will be made in the light of whatever the = IETF community decides are requirements for meeting locations in areas = that discriminate against any members of our community. >>=20 >> 3/ Selecting sites that support the advancement of the IETF mission >>=20 >> 4/ Seeking clarity from the community about parameters for venue = selection. Along with others in the community, we have asked the IETF = Chair to formalize the MTGVENUE effort into a working group to produce a = meeting selection BCP with consensus from the community about how to = address diversity (of our community, of the laws in different parts of = the world) as part of the selection criteria for meeting venues >>=20 >> 5/ Improving our site selection process so that issues of which the = community may be aware can be brought to light before we have signed = contracts for a meeting. >>=20 >> In characterizing Singapore as a place where he could not bring his = own family, because of its laws, Ted Hardie asked at the IETF 95 plenary = meeting that those who had made the decision to meet in Singapore not = bring their families, either. In an earlier message, the IAOC outlined = that it 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 understanding = has now obviously evolved, and we understand better situations where = companions are necessary. We note Ted's request. Individual = participants here will have to make their own decisions about how to = answer it. As a group we are focusing on making sure we improve our = processes so that we don=E2=80=99t surprise or undermine any segments of = our community. >>=20 >> In taking a broader view and reflecting on issues where IAOC = announcements may have surprised the community (not solely related to = IETF 100, nor just meeting venues) we also consider that there is merit = in a broader review of the IASA structure, 10+ years after its = inception. At the same time, the practical demands of the meeting = arrangements discussion and the IANA-related work at the IETF Trust need = to be satisfied first. So we plan to initiate the evaluation of IASA = work before the end of this year. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The IAOC=E2=80=99s decision making process >> ---------------------------------- >>=20 >> We (IAOC) don=E2=80=99t believe the discussion of Singapore=E2=80=99s = appropriateness as an IETF meeting site (beyond IETF 100) is completed. = There are many strong positions: we have heard people say that = Singapore=E2=80=99s laws clearly violate human rights and it is = unconscionable to propose meeting there; we have heard people say that = our meeting locations are about getting the work done and if national = politics enter into it the IETF is lost beyond any hope of relevancy; = people urge that we cannot avoid places where people are oppressed = without denying the important contributions of those oppressed; some = worry that we cannot attend to any particular oppression because once we = start there will be no place left for us to meet. All of these views = have arguments in their favour; determining an outcome to the = conversation is well beyond the scope of the IAOC (we look to the IETF = Chair/IESG for determination of IETF policy), and they cannot be = reconciled to a clear pointer to what to do now. >>=20 >> Against that backdrop, we perceived no obvious answer for where to = hold IETF 100. >>=20 >> Absent a clear answer to the question of suitability of decision = criteria for/against Singapore, and having reviewed resources to = ascertain that everyone would be able to travel to Singapore with a = reasonable expectation of personal safety and respect, the IAOC was = guided by a few principles. >>=20 >> First, we obviously wanted to take into account all the feedback we = received, both on- and off-list. We could only take it into account, = rather than reflect it, because we received responses from many = different people who identified in many different ways, and sometimes = those responses were diametrically opposed to others. >>=20 >> Second, we did not believe it was practically possible to consider = alternative dates only 18 months before the meeting was to happen, = especially because we already have a challenge in ensuring we have = adequate support for the ordinary contract negotiation that needs to = happen; so we decided that we had to stick with the dates we had. >>=20 >> Third, we believed that it was necessary that, if we were going to = move, we would need to move to a site where we had already had an = unambiguously successful meeting, otherwise we could run the risk of = substituting one potentially unsuitable venue for another. With less = than 18 months to the meeting (practically no time for planning = purposes), we focused on specific sites we had been to before. (We were = also somewhat worried about the financial effects on the IETF of moving = the meeting. We have had throughout strong support from our meeting = sponsor. So we believed that these effects could have been blunted but = not completely eliminated when undertaking a new negotiation, since it = would be clear to anyone with whom we were negotiating that we did not = have a lot of options.) >>=20 >> Finally, we determined that that this meeting should take place in = Asia if at all possible, to honor the 1-1-1* policy in 2017. None of the = candidate sites in Asia could accommodate us on the dates we already = had, making Singapore the only Asian venue available. There were a = number of potential sites in Europe and North America. >>=20 >> Part of our problem is that the requirements for meeting venue = selection were sketchily defined, and reasonable people can perceive = different priorities; we look forward to successful conclusion of = MTGVENUE work to remove ambiguity from those requirements. >>=20 >> We acknowledge that much of this could have been avoided if we had = attempted earlier the strategy of calling out potential venues early, to = see whether there are problems. We regret very much that we did not do = that, and we shall certainly heed that lesson in the future. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Leslie, for the IAOC. >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Wed Jun 8 09:03:53 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 E012512D78E; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:00:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 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, 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 eofkDsdYoQug; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x229.google.com (mail-vk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::229]) (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 D0D4A12D93E; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id e4so17557036vkb.1; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:00:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=l7prcpj4OGRONwvDrWPFfxkRflR7boNmBbxTND4i2uU=; b=ii8tCUQ0h3juVvM/e9WA/d1xHsw6DEJJFZl7P/w92E8kiKVpsYSX91LUIaEdoSmlzT ai/7EAnMDJn5AnQpmNhpc1f1QkaYCZdV/tPVFUo1hWKdwyu6+V/n1LyVCWXluQAclYiw gKboZTlE0vFnU+ceAQA3TepipfO0VmU5bg6I1uQsSy0rzrHeImzrBsqE7fr5a0P43e/X ASk+14yhNibefSI5KqIcu17ywQv/yogSg9Y5eF/X+85apeu4YYVEwiyENBahH9BlCHY3 TvKPxeSRGHOrjkS1klzup2zYax6DaFsGoPcP3ofPXrenNNBUn8AGgd5rE7BL0ZvL8Hra 3Hgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=l7prcpj4OGRONwvDrWPFfxkRflR7boNmBbxTND4i2uU=; b=mRjjlve6v/Ez1tv7Nu0m6R2yLkV86FTzhAUbylcek+0S33Wvag5wWx1aTvxnKSECWu rw9ykO0ukCv3c/lSqI4eNk7tTpJlISfWDdSfi476R2rej/gv1jM0jgMFLW3DQSbGy2Pt tb4W8zKVhJAzjWcLjNOWnmcb/9bx0Hz6ZEjH1IidvzKLNeX29yHnQb+DzR5B6vIhicjt RwB1y8tbe3qQHZQMQ+9qlivzTRbJj49WyfD0YeOD8ylifNjVMeqtooMPjRx4h16AVpdR BJhz1RfpvM+UgZdT+unleRvrkYfBC7y9RBdIN2LEXYr4duwLocp+tE77KeyL5FHim574 cA/g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL8pRRu+u9LNr1JBS9fMWuti6/MYUBLIOW97pqDogAzqhwlwIPMwZYQeNqnKiRUHvRs1+2FXFwU5EcvGQ== X-Received: by 10.159.38.108 with SMTP id 99mr2718070uag.27.1465401656569; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:00:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.2.168 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:00:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> From: Behcet Sarikaya Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:00:56 -0500 Message-ID: To: Yoav Nir Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: IETF Announcement List , recentattendees@ietf.org, IETF , Jordi Palet Martinez Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:01:00 -0000 On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: > I doubt they will be able or willing to help much. =E2=80=9CYour country = is evil and discriminatory. What do you have to say about this?=E2=80=9D B= esides, we=E2=80=99d be talking to the executive branch, while change tends= to come from either the legislative or judicial. I also don=E2=80=99t beli= eve it=E2=80=99s the job of the IETF to give =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80=9D to = officials of host countries. Making a habit of this will make us about as w= elcome as the globalization protesters were 15 years ago. > > Deciding not to meet somewhere is one thing. Extending the agenda of meet= ings from just technical work to technical work plus political protest is n= ot a good idea. > +1 to both of the above points > The good outcome coming out of this is the decision to crowd-source the v= etting of possible destinations such as [1]. A message such as this about S= ingapore would have prevented quite a bit of =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80=9D for= the IAOC. > I am not sure about this. I thought IOAC said it is difficult/costly to change Singapore venue at this moment. Behcet > Yoav > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg97908.html > >> On 8 Jun 2016, at 5:13 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> >> Thanks Leslie, >> >> Trying to get a positive side out of this debate, I will suggest the IAO= C to work with ISOC in order to contact the Singapore government and try to= get some statement about their future intend with LGTBQ discriminatory law= s. Probably we need to work together with locals, other organizations, etc. >> >> At this way we could have some =E2=80=9Cadditional=E2=80=9D success as o= utcome for this meeting, or otherwise, make sure that the relevant authorit= ies get some kind of =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80=9D during the event, in case t= here is no progress to change/cancel those laws. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> >> >> -----Mensaje original----- >> De: ietf en nombre de IAOC Chair >> Responder a: >> Fecha: mi=C3=A9rcoles, 8 de junio de 2016, 15:56 >> Para: IETF Announcement List >> CC: , >> Asunto: IETF 100, IAOC perspective >> >>> This is a follow up to the discussion on holding IETF 100 in Singapore,= arising from the issue of the existence of Singapore laws that discrimina= te against LGBTQ people. >>> >>> Jari, as IETF Chair, is sending a note outlining the forward-looking st= eps from the perspective of IETF community actions, so this note is focused= on IAOC actions as part of the bigger context. >>> >>> The IAOC has carefully reviewed feedback from the community, available = alternative venue options and consulted with the IESG. We have decided to= keep the IETF 100 meeting in Singapore, while recognizing that the discuss= ion of Singapore=E2=80=99s appropriateness as an IETF meeting site for othe= r future meetings is not completed. >>> >>> We, and we believe the whole IETF, value and respect our LGBTQ particip= ants and their families. It was and is not our intention to make them feel= unwelcome at IETF 100. In making this decision, we recognize that it was = our mistake in missing the issue in the first place. For that, again, we c= an only apologize. >>> >>> More detail about the decision process itself is outlined in detail bel= ow =E2=80=94 this message has been difficult to structure in order to both = clearly deliver the decision and provide detail about how we reached it, wi= thout burying the former in the important detail. >>> >>> I do want to thank everyone who has shared their knowledge and perspect= ive in the discussion =E2=80=94 I appreciate it has been difficult. And, t= here are significant substantive issues in this discussion that remain unre= solved in the larger context beyond IETF 100. We have to move on with cont= inued discussion and respectful engagement in order to determine the right = answers for venues for future IETF meetings. As part of that, the IAOC re= mains committed to continue to address the larger context by: >>> >>> 1/ Listening. While it is important for the community to move on from = the discussion of IETF 100, we in no way think this conversation about what= we take into account when we do venue selection is completed. >>> >>> 2/ Not viewing this as a precedent for future meeting venue selection. = This is a choice for IETF 100, and any future evaluation of Singapore or a= ny other venues will be made in the light of whatever the IETF community de= cides are requirements for meeting locations in areas that discriminate aga= inst any members of our community. >>> >>> 3/ Selecting sites that support the advancement of the IETF mission >>> >>> 4/ Seeking clarity from the community about parameters for venue select= ion. Along with others in the community, we have asked the IETF Chair to f= ormalize the MTGVENUE effort into a working group to produce a meeting sele= ction BCP with consensus from the community about how to address diversity = (of our community, of the laws in different parts of the world) as part of = the selection criteria for meeting venues >>> >>> 5/ Improving our site selection process so that issues of which the com= munity may be aware can be brought to light before we have signed contracts= for a meeting. >>> >>> In characterizing Singapore as a place where he could not bring his own= family, because of its laws, Ted Hardie asked at the IETF 95 plenary meeti= ng that those who had made the decision to meet in Singapore not bring thei= r families, either. In an earlier message, the IAOC outlined that it has t= o date focused on the suitability of venues/countries for meeting purposes,= but not explicitly for suitability of meeting attendees bringing companion= s, family members, etc. That understanding has now obviously evolved, and = we understand better situations where companions are necessary. We note Te= d's request. Individual participants here will have to make their own deci= sions about how to answer it. As a group we are focusing on making sure we = improve our processes so that we don=E2=80=99t surprise or undermine any se= gments of our community. >>> >>> In taking a broader view and reflecting on issues where IAOC announceme= nts may have surprised the community (not solely related to IETF 100, nor j= ust meeting venues) we also consider that there is merit in a broader revie= w of the IASA structure, 10+ years after its inception. At the same time, t= he practical demands of the meeting arrangements discussion and the IANA-re= lated work at the IETF Trust need to be satisfied first. So we plan to ini= tiate the evaluation of IASA work before the end of this year. >>> >>> >>> >>> The IAOC=E2=80=99s decision making process >>> ---------------------------------- >>> >>> We (IAOC) don=E2=80=99t believe the discussion of Singapore=E2=80=99s a= ppropriateness as an IETF meeting site (beyond IETF 100) is completed. The= re are many strong positions: we have heard people say that Singapore=E2=80= =99s laws clearly violate human rights and it is unconscionable to propose = meeting there; we have heard people say that our meeting locations are abou= t getting the work done and if national politics enter into it the IETF is = lost beyond any hope of relevancy; people urge that we cannot avoid places = where people are oppressed without denying the important contributions of t= hose oppressed; some worry that we cannot attend to any particular oppressi= on because once we start there will be no place left for us to meet. All = of these views have arguments in their favour; determining an outcome to th= e conversation is well beyond the scope of the IAOC (we look to the IETF Ch= air/IESG for determination of IETF policy), and they cannot be reconciled t= o a clear pointer to what to do now. >>> >>> Against that backdrop, we perceived no obvious answer for where to hold= IETF 100. >>> >>> Absent a clear answer to the question of suitability of decision criter= ia for/against Singapore, and having reviewed resources to ascertain that e= veryone would be able to travel to Singapore with a reasonable expectation = of personal safety and respect, the IAOC was guided by a few principles. >>> >>> First, we obviously wanted to take into account all the feedback we rec= eived, both on- and off-list. We could only take it into account, rather t= han reflect it, because we received responses from many different people wh= o identified in many different ways, and sometimes those responses were dia= metrically opposed to others. >>> >>> Second, we did not believe it was practically possible to consider alte= rnative dates only 18 months before the meeting was to happen, especially b= ecause we already have a challenge in ensuring we have adequate support for= the ordinary contract negotiation that needs to happen; so we decided that= we had to stick with the dates we had. >>> >>> Third, we believed that it was necessary that, if we were going to move= , we would need to move to a site where we had already had an unambiguously= successful meeting, otherwise we could run the risk of substituting one po= tentially unsuitable venue for another. With less than 18 months to the m= eeting (practically no time for planning purposes), we focused on specific = sites we had been to before. (We were also somewhat worried about the fina= ncial effects on the IETF of moving the meeting. We have had throughout st= rong support from our meeting sponsor. So we believed that these effects c= ould have been blunted but not completely eliminated when undertaking a new= negotiation, since it would be clear to anyone with whom we were negotiati= ng that we did not have a lot of options.) >>> >>> Finally, we determined that that this meeting should take place in Asia= if at all possible, to honor the 1-1-1* policy in 2017. None of the candid= ate sites in Asia could accommodate us on the dates we already had, making = Singapore the only Asian venue available. There were a number of potential= sites in Europe and North America. >>> >>> Part of our problem is that the requirements for meeting venue selectio= n were sketchily defined, and reasonable people can perceive different prio= rities; we look forward to successful conclusion of MTGVENUE work to remov= e ambiguity from those requirements. >>> >>> We acknowledge that much of this could have been avoided if we had atte= mpted earlier the strategy of calling out potential venues early, to see wh= ether there are problems. We regret very much that we did not do that, and= we shall certainly heed that lesson in the future. >>> >>> >>> >>> Leslie, for the IAOC. >>> >>> >> >> >> > From nobody Wed Jun 8 10:02:32 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 B3C37126BF7 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:02:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=krsek-cz.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 I4ukcnVB0Twr for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x230.google.com (mail-vk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]) (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 6DECA12D764 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id d64so20070995vkb.0 for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 10:02:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krsek-cz.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=u7MEWZJ7jOLyEqdzrkG5YZ9cE7h5/COJnQJ1fAkCeyI=; b=NZsQKLsZxs0wpmdRCyjfSLwRU6aR9WEP/ZPKWPZ/lb/uMPyFsBqZMVuLW32gDnLpCb CsXC46gbrcamDzKeoDvR15wCicAbnkvq9qKvVIn7dh8+w76ejaQdF/zRHTkvoQT9R84l eZx1dvgDlbGiDBg8scoxTy+2w/yGwZt7RbxTahmKk5vTAMf+fSb7zC2o753Sy6m0f0h/ VteBi0yPQTNPyEvn6Ahm5XDJsq74Ry7HOSf1nJPFb2CiWBUlCfn5z97JhKIIbOzyM7kZ JEo/u5SmTMJQaRWE0cfr/slSBkZdY3vsRQ34EFgf/YUHkf7t3mi9bcRa5wrmoOAVuI38 Dcwg== 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; bh=u7MEWZJ7jOLyEqdzrkG5YZ9cE7h5/COJnQJ1fAkCeyI=; b=HouUGw2+9A1Ol+GVHxvQ10lofusVYupzFxEzb9PJkn3vZNt7iSOdNmtSijprFH1iXj IC/sVVjGoF26W1WHMZ9gojXew/MNPvZ3a1t1Jqjg9W7q/9MAYA+MHmD+HJYsHZLVUi0u C90LG6KkFxxzgpAwRuhCYGWTK62bGSsRAIWT0MO22GGShdHQ+0H6Z42ervqWVpnKRN4W hyLFkpjiKlP+id4jZGDuwZ9fZTJSpnD/+5/OChIhnyPQqpTg8ol799BhWARoqJByJKas QJUmUcKGALi9t0TsADOV5PNVv/KkHAjokZUMvF3EUq0lRB5Ahx+ZdL796bB9tHPMBqQL d9Rg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKs8CEogkyAVgRTiAKm/eo9tdraiSpEElw75Hvby18Vm77oBFV4J9l8eYphdXb/aYkiAuszSr2bdqtaSg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.159.36.84 with SMTP id 78mr542247uaq.106.1465405345362; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 10:02:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.104.1 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.104.1 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:02:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:02:24 +0200 Message-ID: From: Michal Krsek To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cef50101b820534c7455c Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, IETF discussion list , IETF Announcement List Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective 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, 08 Jun 2016 17:02:31 -0000 --001a113cef50101b820534c7455c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jordi, I do not like to play such as game. My reason is highly practical. Acting the way you recommend may create a bigger risk for community of participants we want to protect. If there is any relevant risk, I want to avoid any action that makes the risk bigger and if there is no risk I doubt there is something relevant we may protest against. We do no know what reaction we can expect and as I wrote several times, different cultures have different behaviors. M Dne 8. 6. 2016 16:13 napsal u=C5=BEivatel "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" < jordi.palet@consulintel.es>: Thanks Leslie, Trying to get a positive side out of this debate, I will suggest the IAOC to work with ISOC in order to contact the Singapore government and try to get some statement about their future intend with LGTBQ discriminatory laws. Probably we need to work together with locals, other organizations, etc. At this way we could have some =E2=80=9Cadditional=E2=80=9D success as outc= ome for this meeting, or otherwise, make sure that the relevant authorities get some kind of =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80=9D during the event, in case there is no pr= ogress to change/cancel those laws. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ietf en nombre de IAOC Chair < iaoc-chair@ietf.org> Responder a: Fecha: mi=C3=A9rcoles, 8 de junio de 2016, 15:56 Para: IETF Announcement List CC: , Asunto: IETF 100, IAOC perspective >This is a follow up to the discussion on holding IETF 100 in Singapore, arising from the issue of the existence of Singapore laws that discriminate against LGBTQ people. > >Jari, as IETF Chair, is sending a note outlining the forward-looking steps from the perspective of IETF community actions, so this note is focused on IAOC actions as part of the bigger context. > >The IAOC has carefully reviewed feedback from the community, available alternative venue options and consulted with the IESG. We have decided to keep the IETF 100 meeting in Singapore, while recognizing that the discussion of Singapore=E2=80=99s appropriateness as an IETF meeting site f= or other future meetings is not completed. > >We, and we believe the whole IETF, value and respect our LGBTQ participants and their families. It was and is not our intention to make them feel unwelcome at IETF 100. In making this decision, we recognize that it was our mistake in missing the issue in the first place. For that, again, we can only apologize. > >More detail about the decision process itself is outlined in detail below =E2=80=94 this message has been difficult to structure in order to both cle= arly deliver the decision and provide detail about how we reached it, without burying the former in the important detail. > >I do want to thank everyone who has shared their knowledge and perspective in the discussion =E2=80=94 I appreciate it has been difficult. And, there= are significant substantive issues in this discussion that remain unresolved in the larger context beyond IETF 100. We have to move on with continued discussion and respectful engagement in order to determine the right answers for venues for future IETF meetings. As part of that, the IAOC remains committed to continue to address the larger context by: > >1/ Listening. While it is important for the community to move on from the discussion of IETF 100, we in no way think this conversation about what we take into account when we do venue selection is completed. > >2/ Not viewing this as a precedent for future meeting venue selection. This is a choice for IETF 100, and any future evaluation of Singapore or any other venues will be made in the light of whatever the IETF community decides are requirements for meeting locations in areas that discriminate against any members of our community. > >3/ Selecting sites that support the advancement of the IETF mission > >4/ Seeking clarity from the community about parameters for venue selection. Along with others in the community, we have asked the IETF Chair to formalize the MTGVENUE effort into a working group to produce a meeting selection BCP with consensus from the community about how to address diversity (of our community, of the laws in different parts of the world) as part of the selection criteria for meeting venues > >5/ Improving our site selection process so that issues of which the community may be aware can be brought to light before we have signed contracts for a meeting. > >In characterizing Singapore as a place where he could not bring his own family, because of its laws, Ted Hardie asked at the IETF 95 plenary meeting that those who had made the decision to meet in Singapore not bring their families, either. In an earlier message, the IAOC outlined that it 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 understanding has now obviously evolved, and we understand better situations where companions are necessary. We note Ted's request. Individual participants here will have to make their own decisions about how to answer it. As a group we are focusing on making sure we improve our processes so that we don=E2=80=99t s= urprise or undermine any segments of our community. > >In taking a broader view and reflecting on issues where IAOC announcements may have surprised the community (not solely related to IETF 100, nor just meeting venues) we also consider that there is merit in a broader review of the IASA structure, 10+ years after its inception. At the same time, the practical demands of the meeting arrangements discussion and the IANA-related work at the IETF Trust need to be satisfied first. So we plan to initiate the evaluation of IASA work before the end of this year. > > > >The IAOC=E2=80=99s decision making process >---------------------------------- > >We (IAOC) don=E2=80=99t believe the discussion of Singapore=E2=80=99s appr= opriateness as an IETF meeting site (beyond IETF 100) is completed. There are many strong positions: we have heard people say that Singapore=E2=80=99s laws clearly v= iolate human rights and it is unconscionable to propose meeting there; we have heard people say that our meeting locations are about getting the work done and if national politics enter into it the IETF is lost beyond any hope of relevancy; people urge that we cannot avoid places where people are oppressed without denying the important contributions of those oppressed; some worry that we cannot attend to any particular oppression because once we start there will be no place left for us to meet. All of these views have arguments in their favour; determining an outcome to the conversation is well beyond the scope of the IAOC (we look to the IETF Chair/IESG for determination of IETF policy), and they cannot be reconciled to a clear pointer to what to do now. > >Against that backdrop, we perceived no obvious answer for where to hold IETF 100. > >Absent a clear answer to the question of suitability of decision criteria for/against Singapore, and having reviewed resources to ascertain that everyone would be able to travel to Singapore with a reasonable expectation of personal safety and respect, the IAOC was guided by a few principles. > >First, we obviously wanted to take into account all the feedback we received, both on- and off-list. We could only take it into account, rather than reflect it, because we received responses from many different people who identified in many different ways, and sometimes those responses were diametrically opposed to others. > >Second, we did not believe it was practically possible to consider alternative dates only 18 months before the meeting was to happen, especially because we already have a challenge in ensuring we have adequate support for the ordinary contract negotiation that needs to happen; so we decided that we had to stick with the dates we had. > >Third, we believed that it was necessary that, if we were going to move, we would need to move to a site where we had already had an unambiguously successful meeting, otherwise we could run the risk of substituting one potentially unsuitable venue for another. With less than 18 months to the meeting (practically no time for planning purposes), we focused on specific sites we had been to before. (We were also somewhat worried about the financial effects on the IETF of moving the meeting. We have had throughout strong support from our meeting sponsor. So we believed that these effects could have been blunted but not completely eliminated when undertaking a new negotiation, since it would be clear to anyone with whom we were negotiating that we did not have a lot of options.) > >Finally, we determined that that this meeting should take place in Asia if at all possible, to honor the 1-1-1* policy in 2017. None of the candidate sites in Asia could accommodate us on the dates we already had, making Singapore the only Asian venue available. There were a number of potential sites in Europe and North America. > >Part of our problem is that the requirements for meeting venue selection were sketchily defined, and reasonable people can perceive different priorities; we look forward to successful conclusion of MTGVENUE work to remove ambiguity from those requirements. > >We acknowledge that much of this could have been avoided if we had attempted earlier the strategy of calling out potential venues early, to see whether there are problems. We regret very much that we did not do that, and we shall certainly heed that lesson in the future. > > > >Leslie, for the IAOC. > > --001a113cef50101b820534c7455c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Jordi,
I do not like to play such as game. My reason is highly practical. Acting t= he way you recommend may create a bigger risk for community of participants= we want to protect.

If there is any relevant risk, I want to avoid any action th= at makes the risk bigger and if there is no risk I doubt there is something= relevant we may protest against.

We do no know what reaction we can expect and as I wrote sev= eral times, different cultures have different behaviors.

M

Dne 8. 6. 2016 16:13 napsal u=C5=BEivatel "= JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>:
Thanks Leslie,

Trying to get a positive side out of this debate, I will suggest the IAOC t= o work with ISOC in order to contact the Singapore government and try to ge= t some statement about their future intend with LGTBQ discriminatory laws. = Probably we need to work together with locals, other organizations, etc.
At this way we could have some =E2=80=9Cadditional=E2=80=9D success as outc= ome for this meeting, or otherwise, make sure that the relevant authorities= get some kind of =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80=9D during the event, in case ther= e is no progress to change/cancel those laws.

Regards,
Jordi


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org= > en nombre de IAOC Chair <iaoc-chair@ietf.org>
Responder a: <ietf@ietf.org>
Fecha: mi=C3=A9rcoles, 8 de junio de 2016, 15:56
Para: IETF Announcement List <= ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <recentattendees@ietf.or= g>, <ietf@ietf.org>
Asunto: IETF 100, IAOC perspective

>This is a follow up to the discussion on holding IETF 100 in Singapore,= arising from=C2=A0 the issue of the existence of Singapore laws that discr= iminate against LGBTQ people.
>
>Jari, as IETF Chair, is sending a note outlining the forward-looking st= eps from the perspective of IETF community actions, so this note is focused= on IAOC actions as part of the bigger context.
>
>The IAOC has carefully reviewed feedback from the community, available = alternative venue options and consulted with the IESG.=C2=A0 =C2=A0We have = decided to keep the IETF 100 meeting in Singapore, while recognizing that t= he discussion of Singapore=E2=80=99s appropriateness as an IETF meeting sit= e for other future meetings is not completed.
>
>We, and we believe the whole IETF, value and respect our LGBTQ particip= ants and their families.=C2=A0 It was and is not our intention to make them= feel unwelcome at IETF 100.=C2=A0 In making this decision, we recognize th= at it was our mistake in missing the issue in the first place.=C2=A0 For th= at, again, we can only apologize.
>
>More detail about the decision process itself is outlined in detail bel= ow =E2=80=94 this message has been difficult to structure in order to both = clearly deliver the decision and provide detail about how we reached it, wi= thout burying the former in the important detail.
>
>I do want to thank everyone who has shared their knowledge and perspect= ive in the discussion =E2=80=94 I appreciate it has been difficult.=C2=A0 A= nd, there are significant substantive issues in this discussion that remain= unresolved in the larger context beyond IETF 100.=C2=A0 We have to move on= with continued discussion and respectful engagement in order to determine = the right answers for venues for future IETF meetings.=C2=A0 =C2=A0As part = of that, the IAOC remains committed to continue to address the larger conte= xt by:
>
>1/ Listening.=C2=A0 While it is important for the community to move on = from the discussion of IETF 100, we in no way think this conversation about= what we take into account when we do venue selection is completed.
>
>2/ Not viewing this as a precedent for future meeting venue selection.= =C2=A0 This is a choice for IETF 100, and any future evaluation of Singapor= e or any other venues will be made in the light of whatever the IETF commun= ity decides are requirements for meeting locations in areas that discrimina= te against any members of our community.
>
>3/ Selecting sites that support the advancement of the IETF mission
>
>4/ Seeking clarity from the community about parameters for venue select= ion.=C2=A0 Along with others in the community, we have asked the IETF Chair= to formalize the MTGVENUE effort into a working group to produce a meeting= selection BCP with consensus from the community about how to address diver= sity (of our community, of the laws in different parts of the world) as par= t of the selection criteria for meeting venues
>
>5/ Improving our site selection process so that issues of which the com= munity may be aware can be brought to light before we have signed contracts= for a meeting.
>
>In characterizing Singapore as a place where he could not bring his own= family, because of its laws, Ted Hardie asked at the IETF 95 plenary meeti= ng that those who had made the decision to meet in Singapore not bring thei= r families, either.=C2=A0 In an earlier message, the IAOC outlined that it = has to date focused on the suitability of venues/countries for meeting purp= oses, but not explicitly for suitability of meeting attendees bringing comp= anions, family members, etc.=C2=A0 That understanding has now obviously evo= lved, and we understand better situations where companions are necessary.= =C2=A0 We note Ted's request.=C2=A0 Individual participants here will h= ave to make their own decisions about how to answer it. As a group we are f= ocusing on making sure we improve our processes so that we don=E2=80=99t su= rprise or undermine any segments of our community.
>
>In taking a broader view and reflecting on issues where IAOC announceme= nts may have surprised the community (not solely related to IETF 100, nor j= ust meeting venues) we also consider that there is merit in a broader revie= w of the IASA structure, 10+ years after its inception. At the same time, t= he practical demands of the meeting arrangements discussion and the IANA-re= lated work at the IETF Trust need to be satisfied first.=C2=A0 So we plan t= o initiate the evaluation of IASA work before the end of this year.
>
>
>
>The IAOC=E2=80=99s decision making process
>----------------------------------
>
>We (IAOC) don=E2=80=99t believe the discussion of Singapore=E2=80=99s a= ppropriateness as an IETF meeting site (beyond IETF 100) is completed.=C2= =A0 There are many strong positions: we have heard people say that Singapor= e=E2=80=99s laws clearly violate human rights and it is unconscionable to p= ropose meeting there; we have heard people say that our meeting locations a= re about getting the work done and if national politics enter into it the I= ETF is lost beyond any hope of relevancy; people urge that we cannot avoid = places where people are oppressed without denying the important contributio= ns of those oppressed; some worry that we cannot attend to any particular o= ppression because once we start there will be no place left for us to meet.= =C2=A0 =C2=A0All of these views have arguments in their favour; determining= an outcome to the conversation is well beyond the scope of the IAOC (we lo= ok to the IETF Chair/IESG for determination of IETF policy), and they canno= t be reconciled to a clear pointer to what to do now.
>
>Against that backdrop, we perceived no obvious answer for where to hold= IETF 100.
>
>Absent a clear answer to the question of suitability of decision criter= ia for/against Singapore, and having reviewed resources to ascertain that e= veryone would be able to travel to Singapore with a reasonable expectation = of personal safety and respect, the IAOC was guided by a few principles. >
>First, we obviously wanted to take into account all the feedback we rec= eived, both on- and off-list.=C2=A0 We could only take it into account, rat= her than reflect it, because we received responses from many different peop= le who identified in many different ways, and sometimes those responses wer= e diametrically opposed to others.
>
>Second, we did not believe it was practically possible to consider alte= rnative dates only 18 months before the meeting was to happen, especially b= ecause we already have a challenge in ensuring we have adequate support for= the ordinary contract negotiation that needs to happen; so we decided that= we had to stick with the dates we had.
>
>Third, we believed that it was necessary that, if we were going to move= , we would need to move to a site where we had already had an unambiguously= successful meeting, otherwise we could run the risk of substituting one po= tentially unsuitable venue for another.=C2=A0 =C2=A0With less than 18 month= s to the meeting (practically no time for planning purposes), we focused on= specific sites we had been to before.=C2=A0 (We were also somewhat worried= about the financial effects on the IETF of moving the meeting.=C2=A0 We ha= ve had throughout strong support from our meeting sponsor.=C2=A0 So we beli= eved that these effects could have been blunted but not completely eliminat= ed when undertaking a new negotiation, since it would be clear to anyone wi= th whom we were negotiating that we did not have a lot of options.)
>
>Finally, we determined that that this meeting should take place in Asia= if at all possible, to honor the 1-1-1* policy in 2017. None of the candid= ate sites in Asia could accommodate us on the dates we already had, making = Singapore the only Asian venue available.=C2=A0 There were a number of pote= ntial sites in Europe and North America.
>
>Part of our problem is that the requirements for meeting venue selectio= n were sketchily defined, and reasonable people can perceive different prio= rities;=C2=A0 we look forward to successful conclusion of MTGVENUE work to = remove ambiguity from those requirements.
>
>We acknowledge that much of this could have been avoided if we had atte= mpted earlier the strategy of calling out potential venues early, to see wh= ether there are problems.=C2=A0 We regret very much that we did not do that= , and we shall certainly heed that lesson in the future.
>
>
>
>Leslie, for the IAOC.
>
>



--001a113cef50101b820534c7455c-- From nobody Wed Jun 8 11:36:41 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 D002612D0AB for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:36:37 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=krsek-cz.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 HGke68JZQU8Q for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (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 714DB1200A0 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id n184so193980488wmn.1 for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 11:36:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krsek-cz.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bNu2TlcHPCbKGKfu01no6MF4pjhrXDqNEwQ1mV3zuT4=; b=jtc1mcB+pSFaYnb/O5A4EgteT/GbKAbWFz5cgt4EJFFuVD0prGz70+7jKJes4qVyuT 62aHAVWkRqt4cIjp3KLdU1LlnQsThOLlKe8MyDswfjqXHjVMGY6kGmPDvdNfjOslZnec SAOvWBuUBJK6O7fos0LPh6wnVyO8oIfizZdD89BuBXbWI/koaEMeA2g/Y1+1TQX4QlpA TzTQ3ha9AVhi65pNVn7sXuAue+x0KQWv3P+r0HzwAP8ZMHjhCTvOPcuMKOFYlf68WfP2 J/IwqYlWN+eJHy1Fqk4WoQKSbIDVwNIGLSxrJZHTOCvh5/2+gw5KgEhzm9HDCgzsgg0m 02YA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bNu2TlcHPCbKGKfu01no6MF4pjhrXDqNEwQ1mV3zuT4=; b=Ygf3PcqOtPgcB/S/Db6CV5JCC2U8pnJ+hrhtkgJRM8i248MyDxzPEgc4bObiGOcC2M pQonYE7MBypizH0mFxitJT8YibdKuwXGIm0QU0B86m3npyB/Xp41u68Dx3IblwWhyvpd dfgwVyJaY6SxRfAqF0OQf0RZhwtyhIpcOL1T37TmdYEDK/+mu2MNqIKBc5Q2RhkrK10x FI0QEcySLQHf9IRBabFNQDWpB/MrPe4aFtF/gaUFolxQs2u8usQeYsWq5uBMdXsUq8/M Y7U7ISgAQcsjnL+MhbOpeFLcVGi4vqT9VfnzUoLqtIufqNQJrG30SpWdMLdjPwDS2Dz5 hQ4A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIDd93YeUwmHfaxPObdEjbJ3LQK7EOhBd/IAmFYuHNByCXb0YqFzJhIbtvAu3cgKg== X-Received: by 10.28.21.202 with SMTP id 193mr5969499wmv.92.1465410993642; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 11:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.132] (ip-89-102-255-104.net.upcbroadband.cz. [89.102.255.104]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id t1sm2907450wjy.3.2016.06.08.11.36.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 08 Jun 2016 11:36:33 -0700 (PDT) To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, recentattendees@ietf.org, IETF discussion list , IETF Announcement List References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> <6548E939-4A7F-4CCB-90DE-11A0811C4BD3@consulintel.es> From: Michal Krsek Message-ID: <3089a76b-8c6a-28d8-89b4-53b7e7c3a2c7@krsek.cz> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 20:36:33 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6548E939-4A7F-4CCB-90DE-11A0811C4BD3@consulintel.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective 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, 08 Jun 2016 18:36:38 -0000 Hi Jordi, I do not think our debate was useless. I think it raised awareness of ongoing work on venue selection policy.=20 I'm not sure if we will return to Singapore, I read strong statements=20 but no outcome is ready yet. We (as a community) need to be honest, but our honesty may not come from = our personal feelings and statements, but from agreed and written=20 policy. We will keep our opinions, but we present them as personal=20 opinions and views. Michal P.S: Hopefully my positions is understandable as my english is still not = good. On 8.6.2016 20:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I understand that, but then all our debate has been 99% useless. > > At LEAST we need to make sure that the Singapore government know that w= e go there most probably because we have no other choice at this point in= time for planning another venue, and that we will most probably not retu= rn if the laws keep the same. > > We need to be honest, crystal clear and not hypocrite, not just for the= Singapore venue, but for other possible venues in the future with simila= r discriminations. > > I know many will not agree, just my opinion. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: ietf en nombre de Michal Krsek > Responder a: > Fecha: mi=C3=A9rcoles, 8 de junio de 2016, 19:02 > Para: Jordi Palet Martinez > CC: , IETF discussion list , I= ETF Announcement List > Asunto: Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective > >> Hi Jordi, >> I do not like to play such as game. My reason is highly practical. Act= ing the way you recommend may create a bigger risk for community of parti= cipants we want to protect. >> If there is any relevant risk, I want to avoid any action that makes t= he risk bigger and if there is no risk I doubt there is something relevan= t we may protest against. >> We do no know what reaction we can expect and as I wrote several times= , different cultures have different behaviors. >> M >> Dne 8. 6. 2016 16:13 napsal u=C5=BEivatel "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" : >> >> Thanks Leslie, >> >> Trying to get a positive side out of this debate, I will suggest the I= AOC to work with ISOC in order to contact the Singapore government and tr= y to get some statement about their future intend with LGTBQ discriminato= ry laws. Probably we need to work together with locals, other organizatio= ns, etc. >> >> At this way we could have some =E2=80=9Cadditional=E2=80=9D success as= outcome for this meeting, or otherwise, make sure that the relevant auth= orities get some kind of =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80=9D during the event, in = case there is no progress to change/cancel those laws. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> >> >> -----Mensaje original----- >> De: ietf en nombre de IAOC Chair >> Responder a: >> Fecha: mi=C3=A9rcoles, 8 de junio de 2016, 15:56 >> Para: IETF Announcement List >> CC: , >> Asunto: IETF 100, IAOC perspective >> >>> This is a follow up to the discussion on holding IETF 100 in Singapor= e, arising from the issue of the existence of Singapore laws that discri= minate against LGBTQ people. >>> >>> Jari, as IETF Chair, is sending a note outlining the forward-looking = steps from the perspective of IETF community actions, so this note is foc= used on IAOC actions as part of the bigger context. >>> >>> The IAOC has carefully reviewed feedback from the community, availabl= e alternative venue options and consulted with the IESG. We have decide= d to keep the IETF 100 meeting in Singapore, while recognizing that the d= iscussion of Singapore=E2=80=99s appropriateness as an IETF meeting site = for other future meetings is not completed. >>> >>> We, and we believe the whole IETF, value and respect our LGBTQ partic= ipants and their families. It was and is not our intention to make them = feel unwelcome at IETF 100. In making this decision, we recognize that i= t was our mistake in missing the issue in the first place. For that, aga= in, we can only apologize. >>> >>> More detail about the decision process itself is outlined in detail b= elow =E2=80=94 this message has been difficult to structure in order to b= oth clearly deliver the decision and provide detail about how we reached = it, without burying the former in the important detail. >>> >>> I do want to thank everyone who has shared their knowledge and perspe= ctive in the discussion =E2=80=94 I appreciate it has been difficult. An= d, there are significant substantive issues in this discussion that remai= n unresolved in the larger context beyond IETF 100. We have to move on w= ith continued discussion and respectful engagement in order to determine = the right answers for venues for future IETF meetings. As part of that,= the IAOC remains committed to continue to address the larger context by:= >>> >>> 1/ Listening. While it is important for the community to move on fro= m the discussion of IETF 100, we in no way think this conversation about = what we take into account when we do venue selection is completed. >>> >>> 2/ Not viewing this as a precedent for future meeting venue selection= =2E This is a choice for IETF 100, and any future evaluation of Singapor= e or any other venues will be made in the light of whatever the IETF comm= unity decides are requirements for meeting locations in areas that discri= minate against any members of our community. >>> >>> 3/ Selecting sites that support the advancement of the IETF mission >>> >>> 4/ Seeking clarity from the community about parameters for venue sele= ction. Along with others in the community, we have asked the IETF Chair = to formalize the MTGVENUE effort into a working group to produce a meetin= g selection BCP with consensus from the community about how to address di= versity (of our community, of the laws in different parts of the world) a= s part of the selection criteria for meeting venues >>> >>> 5/ Improving our site selection process so that issues of which the c= ommunity may be aware can be brought to light before we have signed contr= acts for a meeting. >>> >>> In characterizing Singapore as a place where he could not bring his o= wn family, because of its laws, Ted Hardie asked at the IETF 95 plenary m= eeting that those who had made the decision to meet in Singapore not brin= g their families, either. In an earlier message, the IAOC outlined that = it has to date focused on the suitability of venues/countries for meeting= purposes, but not explicitly for suitability of meeting attendees bringi= ng companions, family members, etc. That understanding has now obviously= evolved, and we understand better situations where companions are necess= ary. We note Ted's request. Individual participants here will have to m= ake their own decisions about how to answer it. As a group we are focusin= g on making sure we improve our processes so that we don=E2=80=99t surpri= se or undermine any segments of our community. >>> >>> In taking a broader view and reflecting on issues where IAOC announce= ments may have surprised the community (not solely related to IETF 100, n= or just meeting venues) we also consider that there is merit in a broader= review of the IASA structure, 10+ years after its inception. At the same= time, the practical demands of the meeting arrangements discussion and t= he IANA-related work at the IETF Trust need to be satisfied first. So we= plan to initiate the evaluation of IASA work before the end of this year= =2E >>> >>> >>> >>> The IAOC=E2=80=99s decision making process >>> ---------------------------------- >>> >>> We (IAOC) don=E2=80=99t believe the discussion of Singapore=E2=80=99s= appropriateness as an IETF meeting site (beyond IETF 100) is completed. = There are many strong positions: we have heard people say that Singapore= =E2=80=99s laws clearly violate human rights and it is unconscionable to = propose meeting there; we have heard people say that our meeting location= s are about getting the work done and if national politics enter into it = the IETF is lost beyond any hope of relevancy; people urge that we cannot= avoid places where people are oppressed without denying the important co= ntributions of those oppressed; some worry that we cannot attend to any p= articular oppression because once we start there will be no place left fo= r us to meet. All of these views have arguments in their favour; determ= ining an outcome to the conversation is well beyond the scope of the IAOC= (we look to the IETF Chair/IESG for determination of IETF policy), and t= hey cannot be reconciled to a clear pointer to what to do now. >>> >>> Against that backdrop, we perceived no obvious answer for where to ho= ld IETF 100. >>> >>> Absent a clear answer to the question of suitability of decision crit= eria for/against Singapore, and having reviewed resources to ascertain th= at everyone would be able to travel to Singapore with a reasonable expect= ation of personal safety and respect, the IAOC was guided by a few princi= ples. >>> >>> First, we obviously wanted to take into account all the feedback we r= eceived, both on- and off-list. We could only take it into account, rath= er than reflect it, because we received responses from many different peo= ple who identified in many different ways, and sometimes those responses = were diametrically opposed to others. >>> >>> Second, we did not believe it was practically possible to consider al= ternative dates only 18 months before the meeting was to happen, especial= ly because we already have a challenge in ensuring we have adequate suppo= rt for the ordinary contract negotiation that needs to happen; so we deci= ded that we had to stick with the dates we had. >>> >>> Third, we believed that it was necessary that, if we were going to mo= ve, we would need to move to a site where we had already had an unambiguo= usly successful meeting, otherwise we could run the risk of substituting = one potentially unsuitable venue for another. With less than 18 months = to the meeting (practically no time for planning purposes), we focused on= specific sites we had been to before. (We were also somewhat worried ab= out the financial effects on the IETF of moving the meeting. We have had= throughout strong support from our meeting sponsor. So we believed that= these effects could have been blunted but not completely eliminated when= undertaking a new negotiation, since it would be clear to anyone with wh= om we were negotiating that we did not have a lot of options.) >>> >>> Finally, we determined that that this meeting should take place in As= ia if at all possible, to honor the 1-1-1* policy in 2017. None of the ca= ndidate sites in Asia could accommodate us on the dates we already had, m= aking Singapore the only Asian venue available. There were a number of p= otential sites in Europe and North America. >>> >>> Part of our problem is that the requirements for meeting venue select= ion were sketchily defined, and reasonable people can perceive different = priorities; we look forward to successful conclusion of MTGVENUE work to= remove ambiguity from those requirements. >>> >>> We acknowledge that much of this could have been avoided if we had at= tempted earlier the strategy of calling out potential venues early, to se= e whether there are problems. We regret very much that we did not do tha= t, and we shall certainly heed that lesson in the future. >>> >>> >>> >>> Leslie, for the IAOC. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > From nobody Wed Jun 8 12:29:44 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 ACD0A12D69E; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:29:42 -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 7_QV3ykgX-Qd; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (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 2C31D12D668; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id m124so30806253wme.1; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 12:29:41 -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=wapUGrV/1lCcnpPFX8SJ0Mroyq4Gs0vKf+lpoJcmZ1w=; b=H2JlHcN59mP8ywvYtyEpInTlTlHNIdQy/FJnns4ckyUg9YLJYjCcLXicmOBTtrGvVs m74LSaPBl6MAocv0EEFImVdeFvfEO2zprTbdvtie9jr93+bDMovUT68VqmoLTUea1rhI Sr6WYN8RWvZ6ne42oENwqqTyzyIsBZYZ81dl9TuDp3INIkonhw/bsAb9o9aMMaWMLEjJ DEqXLK2/n56vaXUj7KiP7hct/6E9elLAdemfj8FAO+6aLiKFcPkWaVOTBSQ6mwVbBCTM SC70h854lbCUq+/zmFsVGuzU9/Y34LhJHcaKUJxNqMMZtWATGW9njYOLY3DP3budAmSV chvQ== 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=wapUGrV/1lCcnpPFX8SJ0Mroyq4Gs0vKf+lpoJcmZ1w=; b=RVceaERzkpR0w+yppvzRWsy4yWmDkQbv3NRpk+aXIJldiYKPHZfT9s3/s/a9F41Unp HHUyXFIL/GoHDRT0G+XxWo2PID1i5tGfJejJ4QvVVFYXZO6Xad36Yz6C74Fv5HT91ANN 6xnSKhzGK/bXqT732jkCin7P4Wz23sUv6hFEqz5MFWtLOzzmh9nQdJ0o34Qio8cGnW24 SuCGM+ifYS0TdsIUB6hSgWhJTxkGiblJiz2/vUmQiuUs1c+LA6c3IsSSCPRohgHA+lMP 9GcdYpEQZNKRqGI4MvAwLIG9gu4A5UPYhwwU4PujSPPAWwDoGqVmREFSSbcM4udh9Rx5 J/8w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL7pB92qkTyY9x+edZnN/Y14cYVfdAV1VmoF5oVhmiNLatrvnzoKzRPjPEQd3cLTQ== X-Received: by 10.194.47.5 with SMTP id z5mr6755449wjm.41.1465414179683; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 12:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.14] ([46.120.57.147]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id zg2sm3121302wjb.1.2016.06.08.12.29.38 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jun 2016 12:29:38 -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: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:29:37 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <82901186-58D0-4C71-9562-57F90DFCE0CF@gmail.com> References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> To: sarikaya@ieee.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: IETF Announcement List , recentattendees@ietf.org, IETF , Jordi Palet Martinez Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective 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, 08 Jun 2016 19:29:43 -0000 > On 8 Jun 2016, at 7:00 PM, Behcet Sarikaya = wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: >> I doubt they will be able or willing to help much. =E2=80=9CYour = country is evil and discriminatory. What do you have to say about = this?=E2=80=9D Besides, we=E2=80=99d be talking to the executive = branch, while change tends to come from either the legislative or = judicial. I also don=E2=80=99t believe it=E2=80=99s the job of the IETF = to give =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80=9D to officials of host countries. = Making a habit of this will make us about as welcome as the = globalization protesters were 15 years ago. >>=20 >> Deciding not to meet somewhere is one thing. Extending the agenda of = meetings from just technical work to technical work plus political = protest is not a good idea. >>=20 >=20 > +1 to both of the above points >=20 >> The good outcome coming out of this is the decision to crowd-source = the vetting of possible destinations such as [1]. A message such as this = about Singapore would have prevented quite a bit of =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80= =9D for the IAOC. >>=20 >=20 > I am not sure about this. I thought IOAC said it is difficult/costly > to change Singapore venue at this moment. >=20 Sorry. I meant, =E2=80=9CA message such as this about Singapore **a year = ago** would have prevented quite a bit..=E2=80=9D Somehow I forgot to type those three words. Yoav From nobody Thu Jun 9 09:11:29 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 C2B7212D855; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:11:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 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, 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 qFbArpx3xS2k; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com (mail-vk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]) (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 4BDF712D860; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id g67so61598366vkb.3; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 09:11:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gsF1+Op8xs548OtF+fD0rtcAagBGVNEZ3arfCm8J5Jc=; b=eWuau7EdXdV+14S3enyWW2jNnqzk2IFxZ2QGPA6L1uJyReTC0FlLCmR0bi3+hpBZUu shDSuNBmc9Ufh+xPKMoAf/69r3stfhLU/CoF6jYUE5fmW7cbDKUnTRu4tOmLo3ySsXPa HxrI3xfenWvilo/ix1AwbjXdw5WtHldag9PfIRVd13ToJiMHGzagaUPHU41lluPAKUCc StKJ+/kMD4lPQCN6R/IgvS6KmxmV3LTs/J35qMCkTVBBJzBFZ4Ux0OP1Xzirk42fCEUF K9T+feF2X/gT0uiR8TqAFvo8s1me/px6s2IP37LgUZ5O6Uq45xKwGUbkoVcBJU+EW3oD 3DzA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gsF1+Op8xs548OtF+fD0rtcAagBGVNEZ3arfCm8J5Jc=; b=cRRdy+vpLXhKGsj6DWhJpirDW9qtvqGSOQdIAEzVm9LH3H4v/LHhJk11aVjz6TqIJg ujPdsh2ayfGwz9AaT4/AI35yHIFRghJ8YtHsbMo1ScBCH5qzEjjmIniPP+UWlOYZu7Mp wJ3ozeSE0wapKCtThoUYFLcMDrovIAszw0HqcMK7uOywmo4AzaNYgNhh9qqcy536zhpy UKFiLxRaZxHiibexQAvDPWmCG1zcuTd+yx8ljsPnfxdcCmIl0A4hX9mLqJirZaN4oNUi mvWYYeYOByDX6utMXPcHqQZvcgsB3rpQtCMp4AVG/3xq7fU0Lef9hyN0G1LNRT3mA+0p oLBA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIwCxS833PLE7MIYkAdHAoeLjF4mickxN8QyTv6oPxX4GOY+cMHa1HoGtJSUpvtxnj9nxiQ62J9kdeCsA== X-Received: by 10.159.38.108 with SMTP id 99mr5195877uag.27.1465488683276; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 09:11:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.2.168 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:11:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <82901186-58D0-4C71-9562-57F90DFCE0CF@gmail.com> References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> <82901186-58D0-4C71-9562-57F90DFCE0CF@gmail.com> From: Behcet Sarikaya Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:11:22 -0500 Message-ID: To: Yoav Nir Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, IETF , Jordi Palet Martinez Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:11:26 -0000 Regarding participation, I am not sure if we can claim low participation for Singapore similar to Buenos Aires. I think that the hotel reservation hiccup, i.e. reserving only 200 rooms at the venue contributed a lot to it in BsAs. We have seen an avalanche of mails after the hotel announcement. The same think did not happen for Berlin. My interpretation is that IETF did reserve enough rooms at the venue. I am hoping the same will happen in future venues and we are not going to experience a drop in attendance just because of that. Behcet On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > >> On 8 Jun 2016, at 7:00 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrot= e: >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: >>> I doubt they will be able or willing to help much. =E2=80=9CYour countr= y is evil and discriminatory. What do you have to say about this?=E2=80=9D = Besides, we=E2=80=99d be talking to the executive branch, while change ten= ds to come from either the legislative or judicial. I also don=E2=80=99t be= lieve it=E2=80=99s the job of the IETF to give =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80=9D t= o officials of host countries. Making a habit of this will make us about as= welcome as the globalization protesters were 15 years ago. >>> >>> Deciding not to meet somewhere is one thing. Extending the agenda of me= etings from just technical work to technical work plus political protest is= not a good idea. >>> >> >> +1 to both of the above points >> >>> The good outcome coming out of this is the decision to crowd-source the= vetting of possible destinations such as [1]. A message such as this about= Singapore would have prevented quite a bit of =E2=80=9Cred face=E2=80=9D f= or the IAOC. >>> >> >> I am not sure about this. I thought IOAC said it is difficult/costly >> to change Singapore venue at this moment. >> > > Sorry. I meant, =E2=80=9CA message such as this about Singapore **a year = ago** would have prevented quite a bit..=E2=80=9D > > Somehow I forgot to type those three words. > > Yoav >