Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore

Dave Crocker <> Tue, 12 April 2016 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522D812EC10 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3WanjFz0QQ8v for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CE0012EC09 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3CCEccE023018 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:14:38 -0700
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>, Vinayak Hegde <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:14:31 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diversity open mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:14:42 -0000

On 4/11/2016 7:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> Yeah, we had to complain, and complain loudly, but if you check out
>, you'll see a lot more IETF
> meetings in Canada, especially during the worst times. There would
> likely have been even more meetings in Canada, except for hosts who
> wanted IETF meetings in specific places in the US (which is fair,
> because those specific places were easier for them to support).

Is it fair?

If we know of a pattern of problems with getting participants to be able 
to attend, shouldn't that be more important than host convenience (as 
long as we have the choice of an alternate venue)?  The goal of a 
meeting is to get work done.  Choosing a venue that makes it difficult 
for participants to attends works against that basic goal.

> The Secretariat started opening registration earlier, so people could
> register and request visa letters earlier. I don't know if it ever
> happened, but there was talk about letting people register for more than
> one meeting, so they could request a visa letter for IETF N+1 before
> IETF N had even happened.
> When three Nomcom members were delayed getting visas for Honolulu, my
> understanding is that IETF/ISOC folk were making personal calls to the
> US State Department to see what could be done to expedite that.

Every country carries some kinds of problems, given the diversity of 
IETF attendance.  But some countries are notably more problematic.

Is it reasonable to hold our meetings in places that require this sort 
of special action?  If so, why?


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking