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

Melinda Shore <> Thu, 26 May 2016 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A9412D1AB for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 OhX2XWR7MbOl for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AC8A12D945 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b124so34136548pfb.0 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=orK8Fn7i8Mj20mXFoIZsSS4pMjz9CEa7KysGTv7MBJY=; b=Aluo7GvbW7fn8qy1Py74hISQ4xhP2TQXfbFGgxOEMOnegs17aA6JRQCTNmB3Bic5uJ VtWfrI13QqMCtLkWgnCPQMrB5KJn2aS8hSHegDfP+UZQHJyH0hMU/rbws1eGq2A9vKFc 1HITf011E5+d9Z8f9MINE6gfjMH+932qKAGcnlknxYxHi1nUUHJIFmxfGJdcxmDDGta4 uVmHYf+UE7fRx63z8ZiVLtf3nYRUWfPIsAP5VUZxdo92zpzb2yR5QPJ3793nmH2Dulc+ ovk4osGRQYAKKln5jifxfZT0JjlOvQewnQuYPSw024xsc7RV1gdSiGfbx+VgBhLHc/uQ yHWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=orK8Fn7i8Mj20mXFoIZsSS4pMjz9CEa7KysGTv7MBJY=; b=NMgp2iBxhwfAMlfhKgGw45HsEHZGV/UwRkfGQd8rjeNvkTKjLTAy8XZb1oBK6wwu08 TQKk+STT/iULfDwhKPycCB2pvu3B65zWivAPN8Hd0MTyodjiBIfziAAHXy39NPC48AOo 4pAGaODofIlmFjsj6zv9dmmIRIJfSXdPPC57m+Y1CaveBMBv8o2ux2ocwx4gxsjUL4ca CUXWMrTDiIyh2GFU7QTUMaa7Or+uClLO/mI9FvBCYS/NDyEjoy63rELoyL2U+he4YTJ2 VY8SlmRvz029L+zYMe1VxbXLKysnUyI2jHS4z2zCDiDcJ+R0zDvHS2sn49+NN5KDRkye d4xQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJq6rEiOT2PRTKURLxDMGepJvVF0OT9kOuzGP/2HB2a85/GdZE1sn3/91wKcZZEHA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i189mr16817603pfc.106.1464294558847; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id f66sm8117721pfj.28.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 26 May 2016 13:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 12:28:10 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 20:29:41 -0000

On 5/26/16 12:21 PM, Margaret Cullen wrote:
> What about the IAOC writing to the IETF list and/or recent attendees
> when they are considering going to a new country, asking if anyone
> has any feedback on the idea?  And then considering that feedback
> _before_ making a final decision, signing a contract, etc?

I think that's reasonable.  I also think a greater diversity
of IAOC and meeting committee members would help, although
it's clearly not possible to be comprehensive.  But, one of
the interesting things that happened as this began to unfold
is that a bunch of people responded to the announcement with
an immediate "Uh-oh," while the IAOC clearly had had no idea
that there was an issue.  It was known within the community
that there was a problem, and if there had been a way to provide
feedback prior to the announcement things may have gone quite


> It seems to me that if this issue had been raised before the IAOC had
> made a non-refundable $80K deposit and had negotiated $150K in
> benefits from the Singapore government, there would have been a lot
> more latitude for choosing a different location.