IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 7FD6B12D0AE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 18:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 D9krwAdAEsW2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 18:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) (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 CE15C12D13E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 18:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-x236.google.com with SMTP id h1so21090147lbj.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 18:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pJRXyzN5jY7UYM6dj6BdWDyZg0uW2KUJzR/XRrBJHAE=; b=xAiyHrka05yzWHhdnniBB+QxiOew3M2w8+IlhAL70lFz2Yw2OTRuQnwaDd2BPGfCDG d0kZfeG8IUNtvkcyntzN/GpUex0Nmr8Goe0RBq3I0ZNZpVjA77T//M/qfhYsKhwTO/64 x/uA9kT2l7DWsANyzopuBM91TTj0XOjayq9Rziu8kw440UWfQ4y/NjwlYO0eV1FWA0fy QJThzUVPBR7kd09VSPO1vVZYJBGAmUJJyS7bdLa9jul6wrvv+hl+MkKXl4Nnr0bqgl27 EOFLmMRO9XyNcx8bKWjwWNwv+tzcyO8SqCsK19PF9GyIQeKy+EajglEoHVmPwvDYINQ3 np3g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pJRXyzN5jY7UYM6dj6BdWDyZg0uW2KUJzR/XRrBJHAE=; b=XvQrDYVSaPpQk3LY+jZomhCrjrC8R6Zs3uI8G363JLKBPwe4k1TofOHY5gVbrBw1hE RTyuJ6asFxSvVVA3iZLuHJ0XPaoBAk/HEt1c5gbsNdA4fy32QDy0r/csCRXXajkJRZKE mNMizEMq3TDh49k+MEZawRUlfzlBHwG2nQW/KtDgZaj3GQe58HBcnjNO/55cJdD8yTCY 8kJjD9n49zuRufQC1mKvI0SaHEtzyciDzIjapRHUEocwHbmfaRk8qQAn9OyZqrUIy589 2jm6DxWbFONHDUokUdgieU5FuvA+Hp6IVm8WQx8rU+Uno09uzdbT+6GKUzjS4d2VP1C2 fWTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tImCr3f70sdlCOLbR9yJykn2PO7qtxVA3R9+WtYZxSw188ZhCVaWaMvUB56ZLzm1dxc23R16YuHPNHSYQ==
X-Received: by 10.112.159.40 with SMTP id wz8mr2078347lbb.87.1464227870968; Wed, 25 May 2016 18:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.153.135 with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 18:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3LatfcL26d3RQdfkh3VqpJkq1iUbnHAryShGWgYb8TyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5DCBE505-C6A5-47D6-84DB-0B5887A80FDA@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3LatfcL26d3RQdfkh3VqpJkq1iUbnHAryShGWgYb8TyQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 21:57:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=FurL9T_UDGnoWRf3FKiCHv49w9cPLo3Op_=-JXrUZvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2aea01ea4720533b51e8a"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FXW349MQHdVH5RqifTOjnxf6Ay8>
Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 01:57:55 -0000

You are probably looking for the mtgvenue mailing list, and the consensus
(we hope) document that is being worked on there.

However, that doesn't help us with the IETF 100 problem.

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> we get to say _this_ to the Singapore government, who wants us to meet
>> there enough that they have offered us $150K in incentives for us to come
>> there:
>>
>> > “    Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men and
>> >    preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create
>> >    difficulties for same-sex partners and their children
>
>
> Where was this discussion held? I don't recall it here on the IETF list.
>
> In addition to the obvious impact on future venue selection, which I
> assume has already been debated (Are we going to have to stop holding IETFs
> in Asia for a few years? What does that mean for IETF participants who live
> in Asia? etc.) I would assume there are other local practices such as free
> speech or unfettered Internet access that the IETF might want to take a
> stand on. How do we decide which ones those are?
>
> As a community-driven organization, we make most decisions via community
> process (e.g., we make technical decisions via rough consensus). Should we
> be working on putting together such a process to make this sort of decision?
>
> It seems bad to make this sort of decision on an ad-hoc, case-by-case
> basis as appears to be happening here.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email