Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

Sandoche Balakrichenan <sandoche.balakrichenan@afnic.fr> Thu, 26 May 2016 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sandoche.balakrichenan@afnic.fr>
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 149EB12B076 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ItpleyVQomxy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F365512B026 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 41E0F2806C7; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:25:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7BF2806C5; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:25:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from zimbra.afnic.fr (hebe.prod-int.prive.th3.nic.fr [10.1.81.80]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B37BB3800C; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:24:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.afnic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37AE52D7E2F1; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:24:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from zimbra.afnic.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.afnic.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 5r7ZcHpIrs-O; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:24:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.afnic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70E82D7E2F0; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:24:39 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.afnic.fr
Received: from zimbra.afnic.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.afnic.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id qzFy-RUuahEj; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:24:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ip-10-0-90-8.sa.vpn.nic.fr (ip-10-0-90-8.sa.vpn.nic.fr [10.0.90.8]) by zimbra.afnic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F0CE2D7E2EF; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:24:39 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
To: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
References: <58598992-449C-4E2B-867D-12D04236AB3A@thinkingcat.com> <D7078B9A-AF4B-4D40-A8D7-CD7C42DE3218@cooperw.in> <D95B9AE8-5B5A-4882-A371-3C5825179FC8@thinkingcat.com> <cbbc3530-fe39-a9f3-084a-0458c9961f5b@nostrum.com> <1A202503-3128-4726-8E35-9AB76028D765@thinkingcat.com>
From: Sandoche Balakrichenan <sandoche.balakrichenan@afnic.fr>
Message-ID: <5746C0D7.6030205@afnic.fr>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 11:24:39 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1A202503-3128-4726-8E35-9AB76028D765@thinkingcat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GSHNbUJcz2NROwXRh2iMGzmdeKQ>
Cc: IETF discussion list <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 09:25:14 -0000

On 24/05/16 17:38, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks, a cogent summary, though I think it underplays a couple of key
> points:
>
> 1/ the cost of backing out of Singapore at this date (this is the
> picture we’re trying to put together in a way that will be useful for
> public consumption)
>
> 2/ whether a broader range of people than have failed to unsubscribe
> from the IETF@ mailing list are on board with canceling (there are a
> few different conversations that are going on in the background and
> they are not all supportive of canceling).
>
==> I do agree with cancelling Singapore, if the IETF will consider for
all future events issues which hinder the actual participant from
attending an IETF event. For e.g. Visa obtention. If the IETF is not
able guarantee visa for an aspiring IETF participant, then will it
cancel such a venue?

Haven't we opened a can of worms?

Sandoche.