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

Niels ten Oever <> Thu, 26 May 2016 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2A412D7CD for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bfwj-I-QBXen for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57A1612D7D6 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1b5z2q-0001vZ-OL for; Thu, 26 May 2016 19:26:05 +0200
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
References: <> <027501d1b724$632c2c40$> <> <> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605260754450.6799@rabdullah.local>
From: Niels ten Oever <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 19:25:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605260754450.6799@rabdullah.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 29cc722430e8f1f6ed904119444c0d49b0f3ee91
X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at
X-Scan-Signature: e3f2e3bd4740624ec693f7a12728aa38
Archived-At: <>
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:26:16 -0000

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
* the impact the social environment has on participants partners and/or
* 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.



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:  +1 415-550-9433
> Cell:    +1 415-370-4628
> Cell Norway: +47 98 00 26 30
> docomo: (090) 3337-9311
> Web:
> E-mail:

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19

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