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

Benson Schliesser <> Thu, 26 May 2016 00:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D20F212D93F for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ws9xqDMgelTW for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4464B12DE37 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f92so30697690qgf.0 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=B0WbeDP/s5a9lZzKAzYPkWjxX+CMQfaMtreSecbovgU=; b=ibLOJ+K8kylmIp1MzcjB5V+vMp/fGfYpLRl7a0QcT+rkCVYjbiTzEYZ4bb8732p7Dr g7rQfJXQFDRGRVPe0lyOfFqPUmFaB9XiFJfpWPQobq2ZIrBuPmjZjJD6I70BL37ZPMGm F3igSlJD1q9kk/MV//O94HYfjy9zrgbvrhxoY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=B0WbeDP/s5a9lZzKAzYPkWjxX+CMQfaMtreSecbovgU=; b=RVjcJXmRXxkSqLSdbBgKyCc9mneDeiiJ6p8r776eXz5x+XFlS6riqflQ/bShxzmEgM ZrWYEVQFejVCLoEcHnTbs/0a8mH8IXxJtm0kSSf5/Iqv6uAWcpTsBvQZLNIZM3G8h3gr gDOuENF03yMtPqzthm13iDgtmyJxgapXMVopN/OEkIQ66AHtUCvGDg99ExlZ7+W1Z/I4 /AU6OFVRdV/2hw6INe59Q9U97yibC2u0TsD1EUtmKGnCcNBNeHjUHaxtKqn9VdrIVJIX SkuKyM0HrNAng2okmXdw7jncbfuzasOsFq+T/xjy1olesM1+Ap1+cnC0FlD6kuXlHUmO yYpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJNPjnSR20tt6MIxiWKTTUiFV7d/JqPi6j8NrfhdHaigb50+biapOwnwNRwajXuAQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id n125mr4198995ywf.133.1464221564311; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id f186sm901539ywa.6.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 May 2016 17:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-813B8522-318A-4B17-BCA2-158EC468C2D0; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: Benson Schliesser <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13F69)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:12:43 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Ted Hardie <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, IETF <>
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 00:12:48 -0000

Hi, Ted. 

> On May 25, 2016, at 20:03, Ted Hardie <> wrote:
> Hi Benson,
> The question I asked the IAOC was  if their "assessment was of only the working meetings or if it included assessing the usual accommodations for families and partners  (or even included an assessment of whether it was suitable for a gala occasion, given the 100th). "
> You note:  "The IAOC's Meetings Committee (with the IAD and AMS, et al) have inquired and gotten feedback from a number of sources about whether Singapore was appropriate for IETF 100."  When they solicited that feedback, was it for the working meetings, the usual accommodations for families and partners, or something else?

I apologize that I don't know the answer to your question at this time. But I do understand what you're asking, and I think the IAOC will provide a better answer in the near future. 


> regards,
> Ted Hardie
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Benson Schliesser <> wrote:
>> Hi, Ted.
>> Ted Hardie wrote:
>> > After the first message on from the IAOC related to this announcement, I
>> > asked a clarifying question of the IAOC on their understanding of what
>> > "Singapore can function as a meeting location for IETF100" entailed (see
>> >  In
>> > Leslie's mail of the 23rd
>> > (, there
>> > was an acknowledgement that the IAOC had not yet responded to this request.
>> >
>> > If this message is meant to contain that response, I do not find it.  I
>> > would like to know if the IAOC has an answer or, if not, when it expects
>> > to provide one.
>> First: I am explicitly /not/ speaking on behalf of the IAOC right now,
>> but I am responding as one IAOC member that is somewhat familiar with
>> the investigation into Singapore. I'm probably speaking a bit "out of
>> turn" here, but I think it's better to be more transparent and answer
>> your question to the extent that I'm able.
>> That being said, I do think the IAOC would have liked to say more about
>> this (very reasonable, IMHO) question. And I think that we may still do
>> so in the near future. But we were not prepared to (officially) do so
>> today.
>> Nevertheless, the IAOC felt that it would be better to provide partial
>> information quickly, about the finances etc. - rather than wait until we
>> had a perfectly complete message - and from this emerged the message
>> that you saw recently from Leslie.
>> Without enumerating the details at this time (most of which I don't know
>> firsthand), I think it's reasonable to let you know that: The IAOC's
>> Meetings Committee (with the IAD and AMS, et al) have inquired and
>> gotten feedback from a number of sources about whether Singapore was
>> appropriate for IETF 100. These sources included (but were not limited
>> to) travel professionals employed at agencies that specialize in travel
>> for clients in the LGBTQI communities, clients of various religious and
>> ethnic backgrounds, etc.
>> The investigation was meant to be aligned with the sort of process that
>> is being documented in draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process.
>> The summary of their findings, as reported to the IAOC, was consistent
>> with the message that "Singapore can function as a meeting location for
>> IETF100". Given the short timeframe to make a decision for IETF 100 it
>> didn't seem useful to postpone the opportunity for community feedback on
>> that conclusion while we investigated further, second-guessed the
>> process, etc.
>> I'm sorry that I don't have a complete set of details, and that this is
>> an imperfect answer. But I hope this helps.
>> Cheers,
>> -Benson