Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore

[Vinayak Hegde <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi SM,
>
> On 10/04/16 17:55, SM wrote:
>> Hi Nalini,
>> At 06:08 10-04-2016, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> Guys, believe me, I am not for discrimination in any form whatsoever
>>> and of course, it is wonderful if IETFers want to bring their family
>>> with them to locations but isn't it more important for the IETFer
>>> themselves to attend and to not be harassed?   Does IETF need to plan
>>> for not just attendees but attendee's families?
>>
>> I'll skip the question.
>>
>>> A lot of us have never said anything but people might want to read the
>>> section that is in Wikipedia on "White Privilege".
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
>>>
>>> This might help put a different perspective on this discussion.
>>>
>>> I know at least one participant at IETF95 who was searched multiple
>>> times at the same airport because his skin was brown and we suspect
>>> that he was profiled.  You may look at compilations which have rank
>>> countries by racist attitudes and in some, the United States comes in
>>> first.
>>>
>>> But, you do not hear us talking about this or even complaining or
>>> suggesting that we are getting an unfair deal.  We just work harder
>>> and try to support each other.
>>
>> The pie chart of IETF 95 attendees shows that approximately 35% of the
>> attendees were from the United States.  It's striking that the attendees
>> who raised issues about IETF meeting venues are usually from the United
>> States.  I guess that IETF attendees from the United States are quite
>> vocal about unfair deals.
>
> I think that's fair.
>
> I suspect that the physical size of the US also means that some
> participants from the US are less used to crossing borders than
> e.g. those from smaller countries. Though I'm not sure how that
> affects this specific situation.

I think India and China are quite big too both in terms of area
and significantly bigger in terms of people. However we do not see
participants from these countries complaining incessantly about minor
infractions and (sadly) sometimes even significant discrimination.

I think participating in the IETF and improving the Intenet is a
privilege a lot of
IETF participants (especially from the US) take for granted.

If the IETF is serious about being more inclusive, I would suggest just
one problem to solve which affect a lot of participants from
non-US/European countries and that is visa.

The IETF has done a very lousy job of helping participants get visa
(such as advisories or getting Visa letters). There is a lot of lip service paid
to this but no action on the ground. I think the recent meeting is a
good example of this mess.

>>> And, this kind of thing - getting hassled, ignored in restaurants,
>>> possibly physically assaulted if we are in the wrong area, etc.etc. is
>>> for IETF participants.  Not, IETFer's bringing their families - which
>>> I will add is not an option for many in the developing world because
>>> it is far too expensive.  It is hard enough for the IETFer himself /
>>> herself to attend - much less bring their family.
>>
>> I don't recall reading a lot of complaints about Hawaii being an exotic
>> location or being too far.
>
> Sorry, I think you're wrong there. I do recall such issues being
> raised by US and non-US participants.



>> There are usually complaints when an IETF
>> meeting is held outside Northern America.  Do people outside the United
>> States complain about discrimination, being ignored, etc.?  A quick look
>> at [e-mail] does not show a significant volume of issues from the 65%.
>
> I don't think that's fair, but I've not counted. Did you do such
> a count? While our US participants may be the best of us when it
> comes to complaining they are IMO by no means alone:-)

I would love to see this argument backed by data. I am fairly sure the
list is quite skewed.

>> The following is from Paypal:
>> https://www.paypal.com/stories/us/paypal-withdraws-plan-for-charlotte-expansion
>> Will the IETF adopt a similar position about Singapore?
>>
>>> Let's try to work with each other and support each other to bring the
>>> collaborative attitudes and openness that underlie the Internet and
>>> the openness of the IETF to the developing world.  I think that we are
>>> agents of change just as the Internet is an agent of change.
>>> Unfortunately, sometimes, there are costs to be borne for this.  We
>>> need to look at the greater good.
>>
>> How can that greater good be determined?  Would it be based on IETF
>> Consensus?  Would it be left to the discretion of the IASA as that body
>> has been given the responsibility for administrative issues?  Would it
>> be left to the IETF Chair given that he has been chosen by Eligible Voters?
>
> Personally, I don't believe that there is any need for us to
> establish IETF consensus on every possible venue selection criterion.
>
> What I think needs to happen is that the IAOC need to decide that
> information they process or create will be openly available as the
> default, while also identifying the specific kinds of information
> that they do need to keep confidential (e.g. hotel contract details).
>
> I think that is how we avoid future situations like this one and how
> we could get a sense, well ahead of time, as to the issues that affect
> different venues for f2f meetings.
>
> I also think that is a 180-degree change - currently ISTM that the
> IAOC operate in default-secret mode, whereas they ought swap around to
> be default-public, with identified exceptions. I think if we focus our
> energies on getting that change (and checking it's carried out) then I
> hope that means we won't need to try and probably fail to reach IETF
> consensus on some of these trickier issues.

A said and done, there is a lot more scope for the IAOC to be transparent.
The IAOC does a tough job but it does not behoove well for the IETF and
IAOC to be so secretive for possible venues. If nothing else, a possible list
of venues under consideration would definitely be a good start and would
help to avoid the fiasco we saw with Singapore. I think the community can
help the IAOC in such issues and avoid it being blind-sided.

I think "Trust us we are doing the right thing" argument has run it's course.

Thanks
Vinayak