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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Wed, 25 May 2016 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A556812D55D for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wqj7dTVk1rzp for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3292F12D1AA for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-MDAV-Processed:, Thu, 26 May 2016 00:59:42 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50000549256.msg for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 00:59:41 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Thu, 26 May 2016 00:59:41 +0200 (not processed: spam filter heuristic analysis disabled)
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.16.0.160506
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 00:59:38 +0200
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: "" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605242300120.194@rabdullah.local> <> <> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605250826150.2005@rabdullah.local> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:59:50 -0000

Fully agree and will add a couple of points after reading IAOC chair message on this issue:

1) If we decide not to go to Singapore, it seems the possible replacement is US.
2) US must be disqualified as a possible country for IETF venue because the same reasons as Singapore.
3) Depending on the US elections results this will be even more problematic for Muslims and others to get visas.
4) Shifting the dates will probably create clash for other people that will not be able to attend.

So we end up having no venue and incurring in a cost over 230.000 dollars (including the government funding, which in my opinion need to be added to the total cancellation cost).

I hope this doesn’t mean that sooner or later it impacts the registration fees, as this may mean some more participants can’t attend some meetings.

The big question here is then to the IAOC:

Can we have an idea of how many people could not attend Singapore vs how many people depending on the US elections results will not be able to attend the venue if relocated to US ?

Are we happy impacting one group or the other depending on our decision, and considering that most of the time, we have mainly impacted folks requiring visas to US?

I don’t think we have a way to have a perfect balance here, whatever is the decision that we take, so for sure, if I’m the one deciding, I will go for the lower impact to getting the work done. I’m sorry to come always to the same conclusion and appear as insensible to any specific group. Is not the case, believe it or not, is a question of being practical and try to get the best balance. At the end is a matter of “numbers”: how many people we lost with one choice vs the other.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <> en nombre de Mikael Abrahamsson <>
Organización: People's Front Against WWW
Responder a: <>
Fecha: jueves, 26 de mayo de 2016, 0:37
Para: Ted Hardie <>
CC: "" <>
Asunto: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>On Wed, 25 May 2016, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> question.  That question is either:  are we willing to presume that 
>> certain classes of participants must either skip a meeting or break the 
>> law to attend?
>Yes, because we're already doing that and have been for a long time. The 
>LGBT issue is one important issue, but there are a lot more of also 
>important issues.
>It's my firm opinion (as I have posted in multiple email) that if we 
>disqualify Singapore on the basis of its on-the-books laws, then we must 
>also disqualify USA and for a very long time (at least 5+ years before we 
>might re-evaluate performance) and not have a meeting there in near time.
>In a lot of aspects USA is an oppressive nation with a long string of 
>human-rights violations and arbitrary incarceration (more examples than 
>the ones Ted Lemon mentioned), with huge amount of gun violence and 1/4 of 
>the worlds prison population. As mentioned before, stand-your-ground laws 
>means I can get shot and the shooter go free because the person claimed he 
>was scared of me.
>Again, there are no perfect places to have our meetings. Some people can't 
>attend some meetings because of $REASON. Skipping Singapore because of 
>LGBT issues means we're as a consequence discqualifying a huge part of the 
>world (including some parts of USA that still have opressive laws on its 
>books (see earlier postings)). Singapore has the chance to be inclusive 
>for people that have other problems than LGBT issues, that might not be 
>able to attend meetings in USA because of $REASONS.
>Mikael Abrahamsson    email: