Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CCB912D796 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 DIFpRh4Xy69T for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x230.google.com (mail-lb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E968812D797 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-x230.google.com with SMTP id ww9so25195572lbc.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=V17lomVReRwfRYo9CiCQW1I1xgcVcBURm7YLwT97I2g=; b=Yt40a6MtQoEpSzBSmgRyr43qZubXiiB6uj3+2c/QsTGCSx0c5vAPtj53ZZxwseaQ4q D6Hk9CDTEEINFPruPjR4QE8UDTG6L3IcFJBXiAZPgpjHHLyBB8lbta24Af7IySEEONWk dwZ69PfmrwTFC3WhU/QJKgo5RJTOTyb7I42nAbThyePaxMf1629ibauAnhwWF5t00F79 3ZJfhlljBrPh+WA+u5NKcsFMG8uKh9L38uX6gMyIxaIh+A/sdSkCr2lMDS9974OFEgnH RCkeJXJSj1mc0PqW8azNo54Q8t0j1CKbhr7oO9gsU3cU86J+PgU5rfbVFE7oSwsWUyrX SI0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=V17lomVReRwfRYo9CiCQW1I1xgcVcBURm7YLwT97I2g=; b=ez2PNjaR8CFELI/4mTMnaixwR1/qt+eotXVB03R6sRLC62RG7UXVJ+ZnOx/2wHicbJ kxSk2AaiOlJyM9vZ0c1cEPzz8V09DYjPO0Kuj80H4LllNTOWlAPEgPXquPE6ASc5bdvh buh5cIcZ3ACdrT6cq35epBGfVb5DLWMlYpIt55JMJzuPtZSIPrDG5Brq2OZ6jCNXn+uZ lfv5IaaW2QVaMRsNclbQ47hKG/eb9vkx8It+mPCpNfSh/xUOSCOE8Jq4xdoSXqIxW5hj R1Q6Cf5gRca231oX/9ymtgTz7+DVFEwU/iUBBuv7dViH5+39xbuoeNv3wBFaACiVrOxb GN3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKvRcq3qggTdnQ2Famb+/neAb65iWw1VLIxRpEHsNQJzQ+AGnwEPFbVKU2nr6DeGjZugnsUbhRksfMqwg==
X-Received: by 10.112.10.37 with SMTP id f5mr2985462lbb.58.1464273289060; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.153.135 with HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2sYmE9JoROO2B9w0T1mJ=D3z-dvjGRY73H+38mz6+e=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5DCBE505-C6A5-47D6-84DB-0B5887A80FDA@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3LatfcL26d3RQdfkh3VqpJkq1iUbnHAryShGWgYb8TyQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=FurL9T_UDGnoWRf3FKiCHv49w9cPLo3Op_=-JXrUZvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2sYmE9JoROO2B9w0T1mJ=D3z-dvjGRY73H+38mz6+e=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 10:34:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=hc7j_wv7TBtqaFjZv3t56aNLg5gpt6L65AKUQnP28Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113606dc3fb7d30533bfb1fa
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0ktngVZuqyzZZfXQvn2vVGUVMP8>
Cc: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:35:40 -0000

Right.   All of the discussion has been over here, because the Singapore
question is (one assumes) more urgent in peoples' minds.   But there is a
consensus document being worked on; if people are really interested in
defining a policy around this issue, that consensus document or one that
follows it is where the policy should be stated.   That way the policy can
go through the regular IETF consensus process.

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>;
wrote:

> I looked at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=mtgvenue
> but didn't see much. A search for "singapore" finds 9 messages, only 2 of
> which seem relevant to this issue.
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>; wrote:
>
>> You are probably looking for the mtgvenue mailing list, and the consensus
>> (we hope) document that is being worked on there.
>>
>> However, that doesn't help us with the IETF 100 problem.
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>;
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>;
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> we get to say _this_ to the Singapore government, who wants us to meet
>>>> there enough that they have offered us $150K in incentives for us to come
>>>> there:
>>>>
>>>> > “    Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men and
>>>> >    preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create
>>>> >    difficulties for same-sex partners and their children
>>>
>>>
>>> Where was this discussion held? I don't recall it here on the IETF list.
>>>
>>> In addition to the obvious impact on future venue selection, which I
>>> assume has already been debated (Are we going to have to stop holding IETFs
>>> in Asia for a few years? What does that mean for IETF participants who live
>>> in Asia? etc.) I would assume there are other local practices such as free
>>> speech or unfettered Internet access that the IETF might want to take a
>>> stand on. How do we decide which ones those are?
>>>
>>> As a community-driven organization, we make most decisions via community
>>> process (e.g., we make technical decisions via rough consensus). Should we
>>> be working on putting together such a process to make this sort of decision?
>>>
>>> It seems bad to make this sort of decision on an ad-hoc, case-by-case
>>> basis as appears to be happening here.
>>>
>>
>>
>