Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sun, 10 April 2016 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051CB12D608 for <diversity@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.297
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 Qdwx5N4Nyh4R for <diversity@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6449F12B051 for <diversity@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CBFEBE25; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 18:19:14 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3CDesUWirmFh; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 18:19:12 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.49.100] (unknown [86.46.23.241]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EDADEBDF9; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 18:19:11 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1460308752; bh=JxgC9jev6txW4P2Yh/ucFr6Hvm2fZ05bAXqLC+EEP5Q=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=oxnnH2WwOl7DqA6vGno3a3W4I66mWhBt4vuk0cYnk3E4yXeklpK+kWdzHMIDu8w2S xFQbyWCxEdZCXc4OZMYaKyH5MnlDbR/9QoV+PYvLSU6U5zspOUQG7V2r3cxWPDmtF2 O1SQdHu3IBU34a0ocxDYuGL3Nqvy2gOeLq54jjhk=
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>, nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com, Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <20160410063603.6283348.44889.10575@blackberry.com> <459690655.171220.1460293717474.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20160410074445.0de30c68@resistor.net>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <570A8B0E.5060505@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 18:19:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20160410074445.0de30c68@resistor.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms020705000102050303090707"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/cSGsB4zCh-Wz2rYV_caWZr_QMsg>
Cc: diversity@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore
X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diversity open mailing list <diversity.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/diversity>, <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/diversity/>
List-Post: <mailto:diversity@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity>, <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 17:19:19 -0000

Hi SM,

On 10/04/16 17:55, SM wrote:
> Hi Nalini,
> At 06:08 10-04-2016, nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com 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.

> 
>> 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 ietf@ietf.org 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:-)

> 
> 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.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> Regards,
> -sm
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> diversity@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>