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

[Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

I think it's very good that we are discussing this issue, but I am
afraid that we'll not come to a conclusion unless we (further) develop a
framework and process to facilitate the decision making.

draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02 is a good start but
as this discussion shows, several things have not taken into consideration.

I think it would be good to define additional criteria we would like the
IAOC to consider. Some of the things that have been brought up are:

* the impact the legal environment has on participants
* the impact the social environment has on participants
* the impact the legal environment has on participants partners and/or
children
* the impact the social environment has on participants partners and/or
children
* the signal IETF is sending with holding a meeting in a specific
country (both positive and negative)
* the level of human rights abuses in a selected country (there are no
countries with no violations, but some countries violations are
definitely more grave than others, and some countries are on a more
positive path than others)

I hope this helps.

Best,

Niels

PS In the discussion on access to IETF meetings a thing that gets
discussed less so (AFAIK) are the meeting fees, which are really quite
high if you're not funded by your employer. A programme to wave the fees
for say 10 participants per meeting might be also be a constructive
addition, even though out of the scope of this discussion.


On 05/26/2016 05:30 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> 
> Nalini,
> 
> (see also answer from Harish)
> 
> The questions you list are almost identical to ones that were compiled 
> based on early discussions on this list and which have been presented 
> to various parties in Singapore and to folks in same-sex relationships 
> who travel there frequently. The answers to all questions were, as you 
> might expect, "no issues." These answers has been countered as 
> "unhelpful" by some because they do not offer an iron-clad guarantee,
> and of course the law in question still is on the books and therefore 
> there is a perceived risk and uncertainty about its application.
> 
> The IAOC or its committees is not set up to offer legal or medical 
> advice nor even much travel advice beyond basic information. What the 
> IAOC has done is evaluate the information received and researched
> following the announcement in BA.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I believe we can have a successful meeting 
> in Singapore and that none of the concerns raised will be experienced 
> by any participant or family for this meeting.
> 
> Let me just add that Singapore is one of the top destinations in the
> world for conferences and major events of all kinds (F-1 racing being
> perhaps the most famous) as well as a major medical destination for
> all of Asia. Many large corporations and organizations have offices
> in Singapore. I personally do not believe that these organizations
> and events would continue to support Singapore (financially) if there
> were frequent reports of harassment and discrimination for visitors.
> 
> This is not to say that life for the LGBT community in Singapore is
> without problems or that the laws shouldn't be changed. But I agree
> with you that moving the meeting would not be in the best interest
> of the IETF.
> 
> Finally, the discussion about what requirements we should apply when
> choosing future venues continues and it is ultimately up to the
> community to decide what criteria should be applied when selecting
> meeting locations. That's still work-in-progress!
> 
> Ole
> 
> 
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor and Publisher
> The Internet Protocol Journal
> Office:  [phone]
> Cell:    [phone]
> Cell Norway: [phone]
> docomo: [phone]
> Web: protocoljournal.org
> E-mail: [e-mail]
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9