Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 7:13 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks Leslie,
>
> Trying to get a positive side out of this debate, I will suggest the IAOC
> to work with ISOC in order to contact the Singapore government and try to
> get some statement about their future intend with LGTBQ discriminatory
> laws. Probably we need to work together with locals, other organizations,
> etc.
>
>
Jordi,

The Singaporean government has been quite clear that they do not want
foreign companies or organizations involved in activism on this topic.
See, for example:

http://mashable.com/2016/06/08/singapore-pink-dot-corporations/#HNwvw.MlXuqS


regards,

Ted



> At this way we could have some “additional” success as outcome for this
> meeting, or otherwise, make sure that the relevant authorities get some
> kind of “red face” during the event, in case there is no progress to
> change/cancel those laws.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ietf <[e-mail]> en nombre de IAOC Chair <
> [e-mail]>
> Responder a: <[e-mail]>
> Fecha: miércoles, 8 de junio de 2016, 15:56
> Para: IETF Announcement List <[e-mail]>
> CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> Asunto: IETF 100, IAOC perspective
>
> >This is a follow up to the discussion on holding IETF 100 in Singapore,
> arising from  the issue of the existence of Singapore laws that
> discriminate against LGBTQ people.
> >
> >Jari, as IETF Chair, is sending a note outlining the forward-looking
> steps from the perspective of IETF community actions, so this note is
> focused on IAOC actions as part of the bigger context.
> >
> >The IAOC has carefully reviewed feedback from the community, available
> alternative venue options and consulted with the IESG.   We have decided to
> keep the IETF 100 meeting in Singapore, while recognizing that the
> discussion of Singapore’s appropriateness as an IETF meeting site for other
> future meetings is not completed.
> >
> >We, and we believe the whole IETF, value and respect our LGBTQ
> participants and their families.  It was and is not our intention to make
> them feel unwelcome at IETF 100.  In making this decision, we recognize
> that it was our mistake in missing the issue in the first place.  For that,
> again, we can only apologize.
> >
> >More detail about the decision process itself is outlined in detail below
> — this message has been difficult to structure in order to both clearly
> deliver the decision and provide detail about how we reached it, without
> burying the former in the important detail.
> >
> >I do want to thank everyone who has shared their knowledge and
> perspective in the discussion — I appreciate it has been difficult.  And,
> there are significant substantive issues in this discussion that remain
> unresolved in the larger context beyond IETF 100.  We have to move on with
> continued discussion and respectful engagement in order to determine the
> right answers for venues for future IETF meetings.   As part of that, the
> IAOC remains committed to continue to address the larger context by:
> >
> >1/ Listening.  While it is important for the community to move on from
> the discussion of IETF 100, we in no way think this conversation about what
> we take into account when we do venue selection is completed.
> >
> >2/ Not viewing this as a precedent for future meeting venue selection.
> This is a choice for IETF 100, and any future evaluation of Singapore or
> any other venues will be made in the light of whatever the IETF community
> decides are requirements for meeting locations in areas that discriminate
> against any members of our community.
> >
> >3/ Selecting sites that support the advancement of the IETF mission
> >
> >4/ Seeking clarity from the community about parameters for venue
> selection.  Along with others in the community, we have asked the IETF
> Chair to formalize the MTGVENUE effort into a working group to produce a
> meeting selection BCP with consensus from the community about how to
> address diversity (of our community, of the laws in different parts of the
> world) as part of the selection criteria for meeting venues
> >
> >5/ Improving our site selection process so that issues of which the
> community may be aware can be brought to light before we have signed
> contracts for a meeting.
> >
> >In characterizing Singapore as a place where he could not bring his own
> family, because of its laws, Ted Hardie asked at the IETF 95 plenary
> meeting that those who had made the decision to meet in Singapore not bring
> their families, either.  In an earlier message, the IAOC outlined that it
> has to date focused on the suitability of venues/countries for meeting
> purposes, but not explicitly for suitability of meeting attendees bringing
> companions, family members, etc.  That understanding has now obviously
> evolved, and we understand better situations where companions are
> necessary.  We note Ted's request.  Individual participants here will have
> to make their own decisions about how to answer it. As a group we are
> focusing on making sure we improve our processes so that we don’t surprise
> or undermine any segments of our community.
> >
> >In taking a broader view and reflecting on issues where IAOC
> announcements may have surprised the community (not solely related to IETF
> 100, nor just meeting venues) we also consider that there is merit in a
> broader review of the IASA structure, 10+ years after its inception. At the
> same time, the practical demands of the meeting arrangements discussion and
> the IANA-related work at the IETF Trust need to be satisfied first.  So we
> plan to initiate the evaluation of IASA work before the end of this year.
> >
> >
> >
> >The IAOC’s decision making process
> >----------------------------------
> >
> >We (IAOC) don’t believe the discussion of Singapore’s appropriateness as
> an IETF meeting site (beyond IETF 100) is completed.  There are many strong
> positions: we have heard people say that Singapore’s laws clearly violate
> human rights and it is unconscionable to propose meeting there; we have
> heard people say that our meeting locations are about getting the work done
> and if national politics enter into it the IETF is lost beyond any hope of
> relevancy; people urge that we cannot avoid places where people are
> oppressed without denying the important contributions of those oppressed;
> some worry that we cannot attend to any particular oppression because once
> we start there will be no place left for us to meet.   All of these views
> have arguments in their favour; determining an outcome to the conversation
> is well beyond the scope of the IAOC (we look to the IETF Chair/IESG for
> determination of IETF policy), and they cannot be reconciled to a clear
> pointer to what to do now.
> >
> >Against that backdrop, we perceived no obvious answer for where to hold
> IETF 100.
> >
> >Absent a clear answer to the question of suitability of decision criteria
> for/against Singapore, and having reviewed resources to ascertain that
> everyone would be able to travel to Singapore with a reasonable expectation
> of personal safety and respect, the IAOC was guided by a few principles.
> >
> >First, we obviously wanted to take into account all the feedback we
> received, both on- and off-list.  We could only take it into account,
> rather than reflect it, because we received responses from many different
> people who identified in many different ways, and sometimes those responses
> were diametrically opposed to others.
> >
> >Second, we did not believe it was practically possible to consider
> alternative dates only 18 months before the meeting was to happen,
> especially because we already have a challenge in ensuring we have adequate
> support for the ordinary contract negotiation that needs to happen; so we
> decided that we had to stick with the dates we had.
> >
> >Third, we believed that it was necessary that, if we were going to move,
> we would need to move to a site where we had already had an unambiguously
> successful meeting, otherwise we could run the risk of substituting one
> potentially unsuitable venue for another.   With less than 18 months to the
> meeting (practically no time for planning purposes), we focused on specific
> sites we had been to before.  (We were also somewhat worried about the
> financial effects on the IETF of moving the meeting.  We have had
> throughout strong support from our meeting sponsor.  So we believed that
> these effects could have been blunted but not completely eliminated when
> undertaking a new negotiation, since it would be clear to anyone with whom
> we were negotiating that we did not have a lot of options.)
> >
> >Finally, we determined that that this meeting should take place in Asia
> if at all possible, to honor the 1-1-1* policy in 2017. None of the
> candidate sites in Asia could accommodate us on the dates we already had,
> making Singapore the only Asian venue available.  There were a number of
> potential sites in Europe and North America.
> >
> >Part of our problem is that the requirements for meeting venue selection
> were sketchily defined, and reasonable people can perceive different
> priorities;  we look forward to successful conclusion of MTGVENUE work to
> remove ambiguity from those requirements.
> >
> >We acknowledge that much of this could have been avoided if we had
> attempted earlier the strategy of calling out potential venues early, to
> see whether there are problems.  We regret very much that we did not do
> that, and we shall certainly heed that lesson in the future.
> >
> >
> >
> >Leslie, for the IAOC.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>