RE: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

"Hutton, Andrew" <> Thu, 26 May 2016 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2552612D650; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.344
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z5NrXAyc6CSs; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2366F12D6CD; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Server) with ESMTP id 6CBA523F04DD; Thu, 26 May 2016 16:13:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0279.002; Thu, 26 May 2016 16:13:33 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <>
To: Dhruv Dhody <>, Leslie Daigle <>
Subject: RE: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Thread-Topic: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Thread-Index: AQHRt1Ba/g5VWvEO+0ubgi/P3xSphJ/LPquA
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:13:33 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <027501d1b724$632c2c40$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF26115F08MCHP04MSXglobal_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, " Discussion" <>
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:13:41 -0000

Thanks Dhruv for this I have been reluctant to say anything on this thread as I was thinking that it does not impact me.

However I have become increasingly concerned about what cancelling the Singapore meeting might mean for the IETF and I am thinking that such an action could be disastrous for the IETF and only serve to split the fantastic international community that is the IETF.

As other have said we have to be very careful as an international organisation not to pick and choose who’s laws and customs we agree and disagree with beyond some very low bar regarding the  safety of participants and their ability to participate.   Possibly the choice was not a good one I don’t have much of an opinion on that but cancelling I think would risk hitting the self destruct button.


From: ietf [] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 26 May 2016 14:12
To: Leslie Daigle
Cc:; Discussion
Subject: Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100


I am gay, I live in India, which has a similar sec 377 law on its books.

I hate these laws, I yearn for these laws to change.

I feel the pain of my fellow LGBTQ IETFers.... We do need to worry about things that others can take for granted.

But pulling out of Singapore, and setting a precedent, would also mean that we would limit ourselves to a small pool of venues and basically let go of 1-1-1*, that is unacceptable.

There are many of us LGBT folks, who reside in countries that have these homophobic laws, but we keep the fight on, we live openly, we work, we play, we pay our taxes, we protest, and we hope to change minds along the way..... some even attend IETF :)

Adding to Jordi's suggestion, we should support the local Singapore LGBT community, partner with them and organize something where we take a clear stand that laws must change. I feel this would be much more productive.


On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Leslie Daigle <<>> wrote:

Hi Tom,

As I indicated in my personal mail earlier this week, there was thinking that this message would be accompanied by a survey or some way to collected some structured feedback from the community.

In the end, the IAOC decided there was no way to do that properly (the challenges of constructing surveys so that they don’t bias for or against minorities, etc).

Hearing peoples’ desire to “see the data”, this message was sent.  The IAOC is still collecting data, including from this discussion.  In laying out the various elements (the obvious and the hidden costs (staff time and reprioritization), the restricted range of available alternative sites that mean we (the IAOC) don’t see how we can find a good alternate for a meeting in 18 months, I think we’re hoping that the context of our business choices is clearer, and maybe some other person in this discussion will have an insight that has so far escaped us as to how to have an acceptable IETF 100.

Speaking only for myself, I am deeply worried that, with only this discussion to hear, we are missing the quieter voices, the people who haven’t waded into the free-for-all, etc.  Those types of voices are more readily solicited/heard in a working group environment where there is time to consider multiple angles and from a more abstracted or objective perspective.  A working group is where we’ll ultimately come to conclusion on what broader set of of characteristics this community requires going forward.



Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC<>
On 26 May 2016, at 3:57, tom p. wrote:

I am unclear what, if any, action is expected as a result of this

I understand that the IAOC has to make a decision and yes, I can provide
more input via venue-selection if I wish to, but is that all?  Will the
IAOC now decide?  If not, what is it waiting for (and how long is it

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "IAOC Chair" <<>>
To: "IETF Announcement List" <<>>
Cc: <<>>; <<>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 11:08 PM

In the IAOC's previous message on this topic we stated that the IAOC
believed that it is possible to hold a successful meeting in Singapore,
and that meeting in Singapore is the best option for IETF 100.  This
statement was based on several factors, including evaluation of the site
based on the requirements and process now being updated and tracked in
draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02.  In particular,
this included consulting with the additional information sources
identified in the document (specialty travel services, etc), and no
specific issues were identified as to actual situation in Singapore.
More detail on the information we have to hand is provided below.

Additional arguments have come forward since our earlier messages,
which leads us to continue exploring.  The IETF Chair has been in touch
with the meeting host, which is obviously another factor in whether we
can/should move.   But we need to make a decision, so this message
contains such information as we have at present.  We understand that it
is difficult to express a view about what to do in the absence of known
alternatives; but we do not know what the alternatives are now, and we
need urgently to make a decision, so we are sharing the incomplete
information we have in the interests of transparency.

Laying this out in a pro/con format:

Not Singapore:

If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the
onward positive impacts include:

. We might have the opportunity to establish the meeting in a venue
that permits more IETF participants to be comfortable being present and
engaging in a celebration of this milestone meeting, which is important
to some.

If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the
onward negative impacts include:

. Losing approximately $80,000 (USD) hotel agreement cancellation

. Losing up to approximately $150,000 (USD) in Singapore government
incentives [2]

. Re-prioritizing people time to find a new location (the IAD,
Secretariat staff) who have full plates for lining up other future
meetings; there’s an unknown amount of impact in terms of how that
impacts *other* meetings (N.B.:  some of this effort is already underway
to obtain the information on possible alternatives and outline the
pros/cons outlined here).

. Likelihood of IETF 100 in Asia is very small — we have few prospects
and it takes us months to get all the pieces aligned to get to a signed
contract in Asia (Singapore took over a year).  This would create
additional challenges for our Asian community members (travel distance,

. Possible shift of dates — to be able to find a venue elsewhere that

We have some wiggle room in the point about time to find a new venue
insofar as it would be easiest to use a North American site that we have
used before.   If we have to consider non-North American, and/or new
venues where a site visit is needed, effort and cost will be higher.

Note, we should only cancel the Singapore contract once we know that
an alternative venue, that is acceptable to community, is ready to put
under contract.   The cost of cancellation ($80k now) goes up to $192k
if we don’t cancel before November 2016 (i.e., a few months from now).

We do have to give the hotel a reason for canceling our contract:

Reasons for Cancellation of IETF 100 Meeting in Singapore, and the
IAOC understands that to be:

“    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; these have
    discouraged affected members of our community from participating
    at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced
    others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them.

    Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the
    in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.”

If we stick with Singapore for IETF 100:

If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward
positive impacts include:

. we have a functional meeting venue set for our 3rd meeting of 2017

. meeting site research resources can remain focused on filling in the
remaining gaps in the 3-4 year timeframe

. we don’t have the financial hit of the cancellation fee, and
possible loss of government incentives

If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward
negative impacts include:

. we have a meeting at a location where some community members will
perceive themselves as unwelcome and unsafe, unable to bring family

. possibly fewer attendees than we might otherwise expect — which is a
consideration for both getting work done and financial reasons
(registration fees per person)

The above is the practical information as we can best scope it.

If you would like to provide some considered feedback on this matter,
please feel free to send it to<> .  Please note
that mailing list is a PUBLICLY archived “drop box” [3].

Leslie Daigle, for the IAOC.

[1] The cancellation fee can be recovered if it is used as a deposit
at a later meeting with those hotels in Singapore, if it is before 2020;
for this discussion, it’s perhaps best to consider it gone.

[2] Government business incentives are not unusual; we might obtain
these in another country hosting IETF 100, but we are late to be
expecting incentives and opportunities for good deals, and are unlikely
to get this in a North America venue.

[3] The venue-selection mailing list is not open for subscription, and
it is not intended to archive dynamic conversations (i.e., don’t cc it
on an e-mail discussion thread, because there will be too many
addressees and your mail won’t go through).


Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC<>