Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

"Leslie Daigle" <> Thu, 26 May 2016 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08F312D969 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 03:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k6VMwvVspP8x for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 03:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 385D712DA09 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 03:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A3160030C4; Thu, 26 May 2016 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;; bh=d wnbZTl6p6FdKclrYP5u6w2j0+s=; b=BvNXAIrK8FobhjrfjYTvT7gvF7E+Ljsi4 mUX7wA6I/nYx31FDZC0TTEpzf2jqD86yzjkPFdbZvGFgA6CGeqNK1ENagC6xY79O 1oFPvdCv9f63egcru3kjoZb8GqFq3BuYuwi2/KOOqQQJP0QBgpHThJArV2ObE3rM fzEHnPGFGk=
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2A3F60030C0; Thu, 26 May 2016 03:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Leslie Daigle" <>
To: "tom p." <>
Subject: Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 06:23:31 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <027501d1b724$632c2c40$>
References: <> <027501d1b724$632c2c40$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 10:23:58 -0000

Hi Tom,

As I indicated in my personal mail earlier this week, there was thinking 
that this message would be accompanied by a survey or some way to 
collected some structured feedback from the community.

In the end, the IAOC decided there was no way to do that properly (the 
challenges of constructing surveys so that they don’t bias for or 
against minorities, etc).

Hearing peoples’ desire to “see the data”, this message was sent.  
The IAOC is still collecting data, including from this discussion.  In 
laying out the various elements (the obvious and the hidden costs (staff 
time and reprioritization), the restricted range of available 
alternative sites that mean we (the IAOC) don’t see how we can find a 
good alternate for a meeting in 18 months, I think we’re hoping that 
the context of our business choices is clearer, and maybe some other 
person in this discussion will have an insight that has so far escaped 
us as to how to have an acceptable IETF 100.

Speaking only for myself, I am deeply worried that, with only this 
discussion to hear, we are missing the quieter voices, the people who 
haven’t waded into the free-for-all, etc.  Those types of voices are 
more readily solicited/heard in a working group environment where there 
is time to consider multiple angles and from a more abstracted or 
objective perspective.  A working group is where we’ll ultimately come 
to conclusion on what broader set of of characteristics this community 
requires going forward.



Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
On 26 May 2016, at 3:57, tom p. wrote:

> Leslie
> I am unclear what, if any, action is expected as a result of this
> message.
> I understand that the IAOC has to make a decision and yes, I can 
> provide
> more input via venue-selection if I wish to, but is that all?  Will 
> the
> IAOC now decide?  If not, what is it waiting for (and how long is it
> waiting)?
> Tom Petch
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "IAOC Chair" <>
> To: "IETF Announcement List" <>
> Cc: <>rg>; <>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 11:08 PM
>> All,
>> In the IAOC's previous message on this topic we stated that the IAOC
> believed that it is possible to hold a successful meeting in 
> Singapore,
> and that meeting in Singapore is the best option for IETF 100.  This
> statement was based on several factors, including evaluation of the 
> site
> based on the requirements and process now being updated and tracked in
> draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02.  In particular,
> this included consulting with the additional information sources
> identified in the document (specialty travel services, etc), and no
> specific issues were identified as to actual situation in Singapore.
> More detail on the information we have to hand is provided below.
>> Additional arguments have come forward since our earlier messages,
> which leads us to continue exploring.  The IETF Chair has been in 
> touch
> with the meeting host, which is obviously another factor in whether we
> can/should move.   But we need to make a decision, so this message
> contains such information as we have at present.  We understand that 
> it
> is difficult to express a view about what to do in the absence of 
> known
> alternatives; but we do not know what the alternatives are now, and we
> need urgently to make a decision, so we are sharing the incomplete
> information we have in the interests of transparency.
>> Laying this out in a pro/con format:
>> Not Singapore:
>> --------------
>> If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the
> onward positive impacts include:
>> . We might have the opportunity to establish the meeting in a venue
> that permits more IETF participants to be comfortable being present 
> and
> engaging in a celebration of this milestone meeting, which is 
> important
> to some.
>> If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the
> onward negative impacts include:
>> . Losing approximately $80,000 (USD) hotel agreement cancellation
> fee[1]
>> . Losing up to approximately $150,000 (USD) in Singapore government
> incentives [2]
>> . Re-prioritizing people time to find a new location (the IAD,
> Secretariat staff) who have full plates for lining up other future
> meetings; there’s an unknown amount of impact in terms of how that
> impacts *other* meetings (N.B.:  some of this effort is already 
> underway
> to obtain the information on possible alternatives and outline the
> pros/cons outlined here).
>> . Likelihood of IETF 100 in Asia is very small — we have few 
>> prospects
> and it takes us months to get all the pieces aligned to get to a 
> signed
> contract in Asia (Singapore took over a year).  This would create
> additional challenges for our Asian community members (travel 
> distance,
> visas).
>> . Possible shift of dates — to be able to find a venue elsewhere 
>> that
> works
>> We have some wiggle room in the point about time to find a new venue
> insofar as it would be easiest to use a North American site that we 
> have
> used before.   If we have to consider non-North American, and/or new
> venues where a site visit is needed, effort and cost will be higher.
>> Note, we should only cancel the Singapore contract once we know that
> an alternative venue, that is acceptable to community, is ready to put
> under contract.   The cost of cancellation ($80k now) goes up to $192k
> if we don’t cancel before November 2016 (i.e., a few months from 
> now).
>> We do have to give the hotel a reason for canceling our contract:
>> Reasons for Cancellation of IETF 100 Meeting in Singapore, and the
> IAOC understands that to be:
>> “    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; these have
>>     discouraged affected members of our community from participating
>>     at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced
>>     others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them.
>>     Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the
> meeting
>>     in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.”
>> If we stick with Singapore for IETF 100:
>> ----------------------------------------
>> If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the 
>> onward
>> positive impacts include:
>> . we have a functional meeting venue set for our 3rd meeting of 2017
>> . meeting site research resources can remain focused on filling in 
>> the
> remaining gaps in the 3-4 year timeframe
>> . we don’t have the financial hit of the cancellation fee, and
> possible loss of government incentives
>> If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the 
>> onward
> negative impacts include:
>> . we have a meeting at a location where some community members will
> perceive themselves as unwelcome and unsafe, unable to bring family
>> . possibly fewer attendees than we might otherwise expect — which 
>> is a
> consideration for both getting work done and financial reasons
> (registration fees per person)
>> The above is the practical information as we can best scope it.
>> If you would like to provide some considered feedback on this matter,
> please feel free to send it to .  Please note
> that mailing list is a PUBLICLY archived “drop box” [3].
>> Leslie Daigle, for the IAOC.
>> [1] The cancellation fee can be recovered if it is used as a deposit
> at a later meeting with those hotels in Singapore, if it is before 
> 2020;
> for this discussion, it’s perhaps best to consider it gone.
>> [2] Government business incentives are not unusual; we might obtain
> these in another country hosting IETF 100, but we are late to be
> expecting incentives and opportunities for good deals, and are 
> unlikely
> to get this in a North America venue.
>> [3] The venue-selection mailing list is not open for subscription, 
>> and
> it is not intended to archive dynamic conversations (i.e., don’t cc 
> it
> on an e-mail discussion thread, because there will be too many
> addressees and your mail won’t go through).
>> --
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Leslie Daigle
>> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------