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

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 25 May 2016 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AE512D8EC for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.216
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=zETlgvLn; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=eFnEfbzK
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JnjsETrITnNl for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241A212D8EA for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4PIgnl0013393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 May 2016 11:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1464201781; x=1464288181; bh=yOiz4vqFBG8GUi9/koN+jF8WquktKLCPP6s9JGdDuRY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=zETlgvLn5qtDsM638Lcd8t9IOby87XrHo4BtRr7Qyg7pQXOINNv92J30cTrhpNKVk /SLC+tTAcU0yE74gQalJxxYLNKnGDtRomDbdyrUcdi+1otQnAMDJJHxyFZ7dkP8hNb AlPilYW8BpFn8btT/39IXGv43V5wbgkYAkk9+xjM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1464201781; x=1464288181;; bh=yOiz4vqFBG8GUi9/koN+jF8WquktKLCPP6s9JGdDuRY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=eFnEfbzKvcDsuP/dncT1+AasXdWYcsTyBY8pylciuBGw6Fp5c/vQ0xBD8TsCdcj6i ToH4HSYYzCe9aqxHdY5grH7Y6Iv5p11LBGF7ZXgoJ/jQNbAtbRrTg6OwPNoisX6eFm 7sMDnpFvlUP0mUsCHdAMG3BSSyW+VxgoTm6wT8Y8=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:39:54 -0700
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-Reply-To: < com>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605242300120.194@rabdullah.local> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 18:43:04 -0000

Hi Nalini,
At 07:17 25-05-2016, wrote:
>I suspect Ted feels unsafe and vulnerable (please correct me if I am 
>wrong) and those of us from Asia (speaking for myself only) feel 
>that having venues only in Western liberal-ish countries is 
>unfair.  Others, please let me know what you think.

The existing IETF policy is to have continental rotations with one 
meeting in the United States of America or Canada, one meeting in 
Europe and one meeting in Eastern Asia.  The IETF Chair has the 
discretion to propose a meeting in a location outside one of those 
three regions.

Discussions about meetings are sometimes highly controversial.  There 
are very few messages on when the IETF holds a meeting 
in the United States or Canada.  There are relatively more messages 
(to from IETF attendees with United States travel 
documents when the IETF Chair proposes having an IETF meeting outside 
the United States or Canada.  There are lifestyle questions, distance 
to travel questions, cost of travel questions, and safety questions.

Is it judicious for the IAOC to take a position against a 
country?  Is it fair to offer some IETF attendees less privileges?

S. Moonesamy