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

Stephen Farrell <> Tue, 24 May 2016 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30EF612DA05 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 15:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.727
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZXPXUgiKottt for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 15:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DCAD12DA04 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 15:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02791BE58; Tue, 24 May 2016 23:43:59 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ds11lOn6QlIH; Tue, 24 May 2016 23:43:57 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DCCCBE59; Tue, 24 May 2016 23:43:57 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1464129837; bh=g++4FFnK2/CHI0w4cuqT/J/kIgGK1FmdFb81sVB2VvY=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=VhOHZkG9A86l5UmNiu8oZgpAnU4c5R6ecQ7x40hrsYcIW+dHAR+i1TIaTWKgL1A2g u8nlxVtLa4Lg6wQNJpErQ65KoW5UB7ILwrLwZBZPewDfcxB6/BIeMBi2BgQ7lq9n91 /ZT4tK5vkgPi57tybpH/4A3N7tBv3R1ZDyLc2iCU=
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Alia Atlas <>, Jordi Palet Martinez <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 23:43:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms080200040002050307030308"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:44:05 -0000

On 24/05/16 22:48, Alia Atlas wrote:
> As far as Singapore goes, I don't have a clear opinion.   It is one meeting
> - not a pattern.  All the information from folks on the ground indicates
> that the risk of this being an issue is extremely low - but also quite
> critical if it did become an issue.

That about sums it up for me too.

Purely related to IETF-100:

If there're indications that practical problems could occur
with a non-negligible probability, I'd be for moving the meeting.

If we find good evidence that even in cases folks are concerned
about (e.g. hospitalisation) there have been cases of male couples
not having issues with that, then I'd be fine with keeping IETF-100
in Singapore.

I'd be surprised if we could get good evidence for either of the
above. If we can, great, but I'd not count on it. At this point
I think anecdote or absence of evidence isn't likely to be very
useful in terms of convincing folks.

That leaves me figuring that I'm ok to trust the IAOC to make
the best call they can on this one. I hope they do so in as open
a manner as possible. If they choose to not move the meeting, and
on the basis of what I know so far, I'd likely go (assuming I have
funding at that point). The same is true if they do move it.

I do think that this discussion has shown convincingly that we
ought in future consider additional aspects of inclusiveness,
including family accompaniment, as good reasons have been offered
for that. (That's in addition to the other issues about general
transparency etc.)