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

Michal Krsek <> Sat, 21 May 2016 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643F212D1B0 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 lDqQJFdXIvLT for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C94FF12B076 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n129so27271078wmn.1 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J0yLyKiPHMFQglW7oOzPmelWIVBTlRgqBkc+2EP9pys=; b=b46btixw7igCVEgLrAVxnoHcA/y37DwW32kWCzm1wF3Izge0lauVbwEa1lAbKmSO/k YkJw8U2Ost20UJWvrLkvsUormc6am1R6BU3FegWq9x6f4KQ+z4kH956xW1XR4Hp7cAao sgqWb3AARKr+V95JqRtD+jIF3tc4cwEnsfpxorEHR40y4ay1FI3p2zcGRRAtPHzGnrLv 1HGRYEyPfrzuCko94cUBJtT04rTijIPTLe2at1wYatTHFXOKF0n/uViTG0cIfBRDkOi1 DYexu7kC1f+Uubu+Eki5xAW3uc+qFfACt7cFwMybmFri1QKbYSzsY29Ht6Ld1g2RHPyS ezsA==
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=J0yLyKiPHMFQglW7oOzPmelWIVBTlRgqBkc+2EP9pys=; b=McMeofGlaNPaOx2G7caG2JH0k3qIA1ayiLTIDIPJqdNH2/lLD0RwxNLVjW2jarFciX VXoHXoQPiXfFZsnhiy5KBgB8PXCfYy8SNFhplgUw3GoLmCumapJBu0h3QdtBXypcccQH baQN1aeXG2xJ4QCAqUvhwsv1DcfULHnYSXIPLyDPf181K/Goyz7GfNNPYEhD3lwPTLGM JtyP947g5561IQTCpGJkzzmMIXc6QI7FQFQW2JYOncv875nPBQffWGw3Dij5wLuTk8PZ v1pxqbyor6/6WONstCjdPjTI9FgEDm4xg4a6aXE3ZVQZKiOm0rRk8mZRhTXsNcRtgYfx /JtA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWckbC12CbMQzGcn0Y1qwb45yBAB8SqnVsGroiOyy5Lg9+rATaYvVdpuGjxMypYRw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ts14mr9125272wjb.39.1463866995306; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id f11sm5131390wmf.22.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 21 May 2016 14:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <> <> <> < om> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michal Krsek <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:43:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; 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: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:43:19 -0000

Hello Melinda,

>> I love Chicago. But some stupidity in the US system means that citizens
>> there are now able to carry concealed guns pretty much anywhere anytime.
>> I will no longer feel comfortable there next time I visit.
> I can respect that, but let's be clear about the issue with
> Singapore: relationships between men are criminal offenses.
> I think there's a distinction to be drawn between being at
> risk from the environment and being at risk from the state.

there is a distinction for sure, but I'm not sure which one is worse. I 
have a friend of mine who is in relationship with other man. They went 
to Singapore for business reason about a year ago. They felt safer than 
in Dallas (being there also for business about three years ago) - I just 
verified this findings over e-mail.

All venues have their own issues (including those in the US). Some 
issues are "issues" in some brains, some are objective (size of the 
meeting, public safety, distance). With full respect to your opinions, I 
do not give so much priority to them.

And as I wrote once - we need better solution for virtual meetings, so 
anyone can participate effectively from his living room or office. So 
lets focus on this topic and try not dance (too much) on meeting venue 
selection process.


P.S: We can put into discussion every meeting from IETF 1 and find 
issues in the location.

P.P.S: I see one big issue (or missed opportunity) with meeting 
selection in last five years - we did not placed bid for Mistral ships 
so France sold them to Egypt. But Brazil has one second hand aircraft 
carrier to be decommissioned, so we can jump on this opportunity.