Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective
Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Wed, 08 June 2016 18:35 UTC
Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.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 D1F9612D0A1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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=gmail.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 TjgjJksHb006 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) (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 97C0012B05C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id ec8so4833155pac.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h7/OCA2oag1Et0x+pGoTwCqPg+NWqCtGVF/J4bfXHCQ=; b=brNNXd0um7R95TtWbFJ8olWzEk48DmpXoGhu1VUtbpPSkjB0asSZ7RRxOR71qDTFdv MCGk1CVa0jcOvaq5L74lgRhyE3tZHcgEic1qNEG4rEPE6h8xs2yTN+7SPMo68M5EN0ZU 8xWE0gtWAPhFBjlZlRdhtx92h0uiCxyruaeR1/u2Z3QU8xq8679dsnVQWPjRYq0+7dTI 3zfQxnQsTI3QbBPeuItSGbaVd4mINDHGDfqCnJ6+20g8cgFap9nZ6ntGYvluVpj1Vb88 hdLrEEFJ0k5GvxJshS0+pz14ooevJcPAzZfH1u0MM4lgPa3+lJisHQW1nhYqX3imFLY/ 4XCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h7/OCA2oag1Et0x+pGoTwCqPg+NWqCtGVF/J4bfXHCQ=; b=OPIa5eUvMvKTWYxiJiqA0ifZnUYIl3mEK3Pd4D1csJTn3e5re7gJYWWS738M0QNNL8 1FnXI+Kvo4b2Vq/83B+biQUaoi9WVF6bhsoRlvX1BOHrt/cZT/FIEiM23FtxIqVLbrVJ pFNDOjd+xN/4BUtOjkE3o045/S2vOUhDUSb/w6CLRvGQc3Vsbr8y1IiODBBqBmgNEZYq 6pew3TmOFcti2IGg6QIIz38eDyVn/OFiJJ00GccHfAK+S3sMu85uxm/6rbYOv/xvaa2Y dbFTIL6fvlpRztPwkOPQo6Sr+CGK5Owrps7W4vgmeairxoO32BQHW3c72JBJ/JFEGIFr ei1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIJGP1t+1Nczs4TYmI9chtd1ue8nXwFD2u0EgmV7He6LRxfbaMNKokAg/pshl9yxA==
X-Received: by 10.66.47.133 with SMTP id d5mr7292222pan.48.1465410926001; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (216-67-21-246-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.21.246]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id w2sm4063061pfb.46.2016.06.08.11.35.24 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 08 Jun 2016 11:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> <CADVih5Q1UtJ8z-U238Qev0-ci2hDc62jK5brGqeKQqLd018vaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADVih5S3v+pDbyKuukdgH+9zXzMAFooP5N4ebzJFYa3fH2Bx3A@mail.gmail.com> <CADVih5QEW2KSOn8csR=UmpTaHhYwjiQ-Nc-yQmCd4bFYfBt=Zw@mail.gmail.com> <6548E939-4A7F-4CCB-90DE-11A0811C4BD3@consulintel.es>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1ce426d3-1e76-f7a5-f99c-d6ac813a8ca1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 10:35:22 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6548E939-4A7F-4CCB-90DE-11A0811C4BD3@consulintel.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5hfMlLAF5VSvxdub8dC93svpCBU>
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: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 18:35:28 -0000
On 6/8/16 10:13 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > At LEAST we need to make sure that the Singapore government know that > we go there most probably because we have no other choice at this > point in time for planning another venue, and that we will most > probably not return if the laws keep the same. I have to disagree with you that this debate has been useless if we don't communicate with the Singapore government that we have a problem with asking our participants to travel to their country under the condition that they are violating the law pretty much on the basis of status. I think that this has been (for the most part!) a useful discussion for the IETF to have had, and regret only that it couldn't have been carried further because of the by-now canonical sidetracking into discussion of participation by geography. Even leaving aside the question of communicating with the Singapore government, I think it is nearly impossible that we'd come to any sort of consensus on putting together that sort of statement and that the costs of trying to do so and then failing would be high enough to call into the question of even trying (yes, that's a bad thing about the IETF). What I do think is important to highlight is that this really does highlight the extent to which IETF participation is *not* meritocratic - that conditions are placed on some which are not based on their technical contributions but on matters of status that ought to be completely irrelevant here. We can and should be doing better at this. In the meantime the Singapore situation is what it is. Melinda
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Margaret Cullen
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Masataka Ohta
- IETF 100, IAOC perspective IAOC Chair
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Yoav Nir
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective Robin Wilton
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective Jakob Heitz
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective John Levine
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective Ted Lemon
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Yoav Nir
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Tim Chown
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Harald Alvestrand
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Eliot Lear
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Michael StJohns
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Yoav Nir
- Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Eliot Lear
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… lloyd.wood
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Randy Bush
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Meeting discussions (was: IETF 100, IAOC perspect… S Moonesamy
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Lloyd Wood
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Andrew Newton
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Michael StJohns
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Donald Eastlake
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Melinda Shore
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Andrew Allen
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… John Leslie
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… John C Klensin
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Randy Bush
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… John C Klensin
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Randy Bush
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta