Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,
At 10:19 10-04-2016, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>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.

Yes.

>Sorry, I think you're wrong there. I do recall such issues being
>raised by US and non-US participants.

Ok.

>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 complain sometimes. :-)  I did not do a count of the participants 
commenting about those issues.  I'll attempt an unscientific count of 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg97604.html

  Asia             3
  Europe          20
  North America   25
  South America    0

There is a similar pattern in most written discussions with 
participants from the United States in the lead.  I could rationalize 
this by using cultural differences as an explanation.

>Personally, I don't believe that there is any need for us to
>establish IETF consensus on every possible venue selection criterion.

The following is from 2004 ( 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg30826.html ): 
"I think the venue selection process is somehow obscure and not democratic".

>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'll pick something from the above: get a sense well ahead of time of 
the possible issues.

>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.

During the MTGVENUE BoF there was a comment about transparency in the 
IAOC.  That issue has been simmering since a long time and there 
hasn't been any significant discussion about it.  The initial 
response by IAOC members to the concern was an embarrassment.  The 
concern was raised by a person who is a member of the IAB.  Should 
that have happened when the IAB already has two members on the IAOC?

Stepping back a little, and going off-topic, the issue of a few years 
ago was diversity in the IESG.  The current issue is diversity in the 
IAOC.  It highlights a cultural insensitivity within the IETF.

Regards,
-sm