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

<> Sat, 21 May 2016 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D26812D189 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 13:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 nPe47SUhYTtx for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 13:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0CBA12B007 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 13:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1463862103; bh=wfR2orHowPKjkhR3PpQZu6U7lH+F8L365tECHjHM8LY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=XomtvQeyCYcGjjviQAO6RRrLFbBUOw1+xPmW8c18LkvjlE0lyBZgjwN6fLJY+fVe/9ch/mJOj1YzlT4TnfH9YyK1ogr/GII47DDIQ6FzVxmc5h4uiQnKAaA8yfziAkv9F6xViqLWeZKn4hB6pwwqDOxNO318gr1AkUuiAYoywBxYaJ52yWjOPwWXub19pSZgM/nwpuedoi9SgyV2HIrsiU6+EyyTRyAW5Vt+IP5EKfABsuSTsTjsYfWFmVG+2kTHe8HEbfEHyuo3g8MAHOQWCak0Li1Mc4dzqjUnDnvbF9zDvzZBlmTy0yVEUFhhHAAOSPkz/oyE5UflfYt2hiebng==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 21 May 2016 20:21:43 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 21 May 2016 20:21:43 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 21 May 2016 20:21:43 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: RnU6jHoVM1nTB8sZN1emBws9gboGxaijwQuXX3GILRzZpilTqWs1OkcnarkYbPV ekzyZxCNiFip8zGJmtynKnXgl6FxZRV2Gitt6hpRDpqSuvuZjjID82ROnnWFBlWvg8qSVrWlZovv ZyzgO.BZx3NvtUT3ZTrVm7PtgDUZr7DtMdq3P6w5Wfx9tJFkyHpuOuAdmhjxy2wMXgaL3Wv3UrXR p31UWBsBrLEE2BdKvT_EhWdsP1khYi5YWfVM6i_U9hYXSo.FTuzjBP4qml5kySSTZcsP4wcwARVM Y5ZILMGjfR1OBi0GnCE.A7fWP.l1FhoyES3Y6RDnmScUqZvXxlq2JtXYtWeCIB2pbGgFolGirBPA VzWvuwp.M.I3c80Ju4BTJmAGpDK17PhfCWKiFveK3pBTCYyksTXIM60M3.t3RBoT5r_7aLRu.Dxb m8mbjDA._EMdLfC5HFHSkfvdl5IlkfGyCeXZ8Uij1YqfLIqlF4xrJSOurYJDvfEF3fqbZPMeHUOL xB1fIRbqAi5vlxnHruY5wxcEU5NNE3ZodgV96EK7CBSj..oXXpGYtKIGk2w9_dN5uRUvAXDakLuvb
Received: from by; Sat, 21 May 2016 20:21:42 +0000; 1463862102.710
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 20:21:31 +0000
To: "" <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Sat, 21 May 2016 20:21:45 -0000


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Absolutely not, all is about the same discussion. Is about how we select the venues.

It has been said many times, is not about GLBT, is about which country respect all the rights. Is about US or Spain, or country “x”, respecting everything, each country has their own rules, we like it or not. There are many many many possible reasons not to go to US for subset of participants.

I’m not saying I agree with those rules, neither any kind of unequal treatment, not at all. 

What I’m saying is that if we start taking in consideration EVERY possible unequal treatment, politial issues, safety, health, terrorist risks, crime level, etc., etc., etc., then we will NEVER find a good venue.

We can’t find a trade off if we start considering all those issues, so we need to have on top of our priority list the principal reason for the meetings.

I will agree that if being married with a same sex person don’t allow you to go into a specific country, then the country should be banned, but if is a matter of traveling or not with that family, then we shouldn’t take that into consideration for cancelling that venue, because you have the choice to not travel with the family.

IETF is part of our work (some got paid by their companies for it, others not). Let’s take it as if we are “IETF” contractors. We work for IETF, same as we work for our employeer.

If our employeer send us to Singapore, and our famility can’t travel there, we have to choices: 1) Go there without family and do the work 2) Tell our boss, sorry, will not go there.

In many countries, if you tell your boss, sorry I will not go there because I can’t bring my family, this means you’re breaking your contract and you will be fired.

Again, I’m not saying I agree, what I’m saying is that we must put all the apple in the decision basket, but we must have a prioritization for all them and if we can do the work safely, with no famiily, then  we must not exclude that venue.

Otherwise, ALWAYS we may find a smal group of IETF participants that have issues with a specific venue, and if we don’t repect EQUALLY all the cases, then is the venue selections criteria and in consequence all of us, who are doing an unequal treatment to different groups of participants.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <> en nombre de Melinda Shore <>
Responder a: <>
Fecha: sábado, 21 de mayo de 2016, 20:29
Para: <>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>On 5/21/16 10:14 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> What about announcing venues and cancelling because whatever
>> circumstances?
>Please don't do the slippery slope thing.  Seriously.
>This is about a specific circumstance.
>Also, understand that you're asking that GLBT people accept
>different conditions for participating in an IETF meeting.  I
>strongly agree that our top priority is, and has to remain,
>getting work done.  But, for better or for worse, a lot of
>participants bring their family members, and there are some
>basic questions here about equal and unequal treatment, aside
>from the potential safety issues.