Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 24 May 2016 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1448012D9B0 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8xl6Xon1fMTO for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0298212D549 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e126so10289064lfg.2 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=F3wp0azW/DzPP2yAYDUfLj6oO37DI2acP2CyC37A18c=; b=xsQwhnMEZ8ffr5qmjWSUSW2w8rJqryQGuoznpQ7xzsNuddsx7ZZWKy0DNHZW2jzFQV dKdcOYL9VKLSIVJ6epOw1y07GyM3/aTMIq/qL9/ZDwAeohP5pyrqq4VZbDPbiBzkddIj Och7cV+yjacRuo7C3afDu/jEmVyxp/KBZSjnMpkCMeO6G0usw8L9RGEf8XQYQz4z2oZn u1G6d/hnC9rN3Jypq9oUwQRKR843tgH7plmIeNnPtna755+7SxHKK5WQknwQkSvJ4m6n t0+GYB+YexrCgilkdTFdED3uhxOn5JewooYq+8TNE6suUWw20b0cg8wkh3FMTH7TqeqQ gQqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F3wp0azW/DzPP2yAYDUfLj6oO37DI2acP2CyC37A18c=; b=iH8UKf08YnoaK12kwMXfrrcnNjNUkbCDlytLTglPtCMQC3t/1HnFZ4pz1NEbqFSDsI UXq6NY+5aYkhccJE+W0+bCFq9M/zMJAIDmxaJeu+fH+Z8CvgWykMax2kZq+m0MCFhve1 LIDKbV3VWK7x2+lECsWrGxQVDNIQ9umCyqS/kNRmaurpQLaZAGcnJZ+IX6z31BS8fQjG MgfdlGPSPVM6HFJ3NzUcLoUEu1qg8dnUQvTS5kNnZlEMeZ+SqZf94+i8M4WHy34FjIJv wZCG+Pgs9mssb+RAEtYuZt+Delt0fEHkG7GlvlZjVf3jNp0oSfR5jJ97DuOAnz66Ke5B k4IA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWyy02CsNTkaFY0S1DytYWgCWmzPTU2yhkpzCxRKuuyKNpXYvHZ3jakxkKFxIms512sLMX1q7mcDlw64g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id j193mr8173748lfg.139.1464119908165; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:57:48 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Melinda Shore <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11412a88090a0805339bfb9f"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 19:58:33 -0000

Hm, okay, thanks for walking me through that.

I think the bottom line is that for people who find IETF barely affordable,
the concern about being able to bring family along is a bit of a first
world problem.   I don't really buy the idea that the IETF shouldn't do
anything to accommodate those people who are able to bring family along, if
doing so is easy, but it would be absurd for that to be a stronger
motivating factor in choosing venues than the ability of likely attendees
to get visas, for example.

ISTM that the number of people meaningfully negatively affected by bringing
IETF to Singapore is likely quite a bit smaller than the number of people
positively affected by bringing IETF to Singapore.   Has anybody done that

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Melinda Shore <>

> On 5/24/16 11:41 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> If we are going to bring breastfeeding into this, which seems
>> reasonable, it's worth asking if someone can actually construct a
>> situation in which the breastfeeding mother would be present with the
>> baby, but the local government would not recognize _her_ parental
>> rights.
> We looped down a side-road.  Apparently there's some feeling
> that the way to solve the problem with familial rights in same-
> sex families not being recognized in Singapore is to simply
> eliminate the companion program (a very Kim Davis solution).
> I said I don't like the companion program because I think it
> tends to over-emphasize the role of meetings in our processes.
> Alia answered with a concrete example of why the companion program
> is useful and should be continued.  I don't think anybody
> was arguing that there's a legal issue related to parental
> rights around breastfeeding (although I understand that
> there's a ton of legal issues, and local variability in
> those legal issues, around public breastfeeding).
> Melinda