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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

This is my perspective:

1) Fully respect any efforts for inclusiveness
2) Fully respect people that want to bring their families to IETF meetings
3) Fully respect having the meetings in as safe places as we can
4) However, what is our MAIN target? Doing the work.

But we should put all those in a priority list, and I think clearly number 4 is the top priority, followed by 3, and so on.

Despite my full respect, sympathize and understanding of the situation and my disagreement with the Singapore rules, I don’t think we should put on top priority having family in the meetings, because there is the option of not bringing the family and do the work.

Otherwise, in EVERY location, we will have, most probably, a regulation that is against having the meeting there because personal/familiar situation, including many frequent venues. Should we then find just one or two countries were everybody has no problem and always go to the same place and avoid spending the time in all this debates ?

What about announcing venues and cancelling because whatever circumstances? I will agree that a major event, such as a war or a REAL critical health situation can force to change a meeting venue, but not if this is not a real problem and create problems to people that (as I do, typically one year ago) buy the flight and hotel in non-refundable rates, from my own pocket, to allow me to go there.

For example, there was a recent cancellation of an ICANN meeting in Panama, which not a real health problem (Zika), which we know was also around our Buenos Aires meeting.

Or is IETF going to cover those expenses in case of a cancellation to all the attendees that already invested in flight/hotel ? In my opinion, if we do that, IETF/ISOC is liable for such a responsibility, and consequently we CAN’T do that, unless we contract an insurance that cover those situations.

Do we have that insurance?

What happens if because terrorism a country turns to be unsafe and we have planned a meeting 2-3 years in advance? For example, Paris/France, as it was suggested as a possible venue for next meetings in Europe a few weeks ago, seems to be less and less safe. Should we cancel it as a possible venue, even if we announce it as a confirmed venue in a few weeks but terrorism increases there ?

I don’t think so. I’m sorry, but let’s be honest with ourselves. A bombing can happen in every place. It can be in any country. It has been in Belgium, in France, in UK, in Spain, in US. It can happen in every place, we can’t be defeated by terror, and as we are planning several years in advance, this must not be considered, neither for rejecting venues, neither for cancelling venues once announced, unless there is unanimity that is major break, such as a war, or a death penalty just for going there, etc.

Otherwise we can never plan ahead, and consequently can never have meetings.

Regards,
Jordi


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <[e-mail]> en nombre de Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
Responder a: <[e-mail]>
Fecha: sábado, 21 de mayo de 2016, 19:05
Para: Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, IETF list <[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>This seems like a reasonable assessment.
>
>Citing Fred's document again, such travel barriers to entry must be
>"researched, noted, and carefully considered." While (as the document
>makes clear) "there are no perfect venues", I think the balance of the
>evidence suggests that Singapore does not meet this important
>criterion, and absent some very compelling reason why we must meet in
>Singapore, should not be selected for future meetings.
>
>With regard to the question of this meeting, it seems to me that the
>relevant standard should not be whether "it it is possible to have a
>successful meeting in Singapore" but rather whether, whether at
>this time it is prohibitive to move to a location that better
>meets our inclusiveness criteria. I am not able to assess this
>question, but I believe that the IAOC should do so before reaching
>a final decision to proceed with meeting in this location.
>
>-Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Howdy,
>
>   
> After a discussion with Jari and Alissa about the upcoming meeting in 
>Singapore, I realized that something Adam said actually suggests that we
> need to recast this discussion.  In his message, Adam said:
>
>
>       
> It is very difficult to interpret the effect of potentially oppressive 
>environments on the potentially oppressed if you are not a member of 
>that group.
>
>
>
>    It's not only hard for those who are
> not in the affected class, it's difficult for any member of that class 
>to speak for anyone else.  That suggests that trying to have this 
>discussion based on the expressions of individuals of their own comfort 
>is the wrong way to have it.  There are, after all, too many cases in 
>which it is not easy for the most affected to make their concerns known.
>
>   
> I think the other possible (and better) way to have that discussion is 
>to start from a set of community agreed principles, and then to ask 
>whether a particular venue meets those principles or not. The full 
>community discussion of that has not yet occurred, but in the spirit of 
>"the Internet runs on Internet-drafts", I'm starting from the current 
>working text.
>
>    Fred's document articulates the principle this way:
>
>
>    Inclusiveness:
>          We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
>          anyone who wants to be involved.  Every country has limits on who
>          it will permit within its borders.  This principle of
>          inclusiveness militates against the selection of venues within
>          countries that impose visa regulations and/or laws that
>          effectively exclude people on the basis of race, religion, gender,
>          sexual orientation, or national origin, and to a lesser extent,
>          reduces the likelihood of selecting countries that use such
>          attributes to make entry difficult.
>
>
>
>
>   
> This is cast in terms of entry and exclusion, but it is actually about 
>participation.  If a country's rules prevent participation by a class of
> people, that country would be "militated against", in the words of the 
>draft.  
>
>   In Singapore, there are classes of people who are 
>effectively excluded (e.g. any same sex couple whose child is of age to 
>need both parents present).   Whether any member of that class speaks up
> at the moment is not the issue, if we believe a family member of that 
>class should be able to attend. 
> 
>   On that basis, I believe the 
>IAOC should not keep Singapore in the set for future meetings; whether 
>it can effectively shift this meeting or not, I leave for a discussion 
>of the practicality of a change.
>
>regards,
>
>Ted
>
>
>
>     
>
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>On 5/17/16 13:14, IAOC Chair wrote:
>
>The IAOC meetings committee reviewed the options for IETF 100, including investigating costs and possibilities of moving the meeting to a different location.  In keeping with the updated process outlined below, they checked with official advisory sources and consulted with specialty travel services, frequent travelers, and local representatives about the concerns that have been raised.  The input received from those sources is consistent with the text on http://travel.state.gov [1].
>
> From that research, at a strictly practical level, the IAOC believes that it is possible to have a successful meeting in Singapore.  The IAOC proposes that holding the meeting in Singapore is the best option for IETF 100 at this time.
>
>Next Step:
>
>The IAOC would like to hear from the community by June 1st, 2016 on barriers to holding a successful meeting in Singapore. Responses should be directed to [e-mail]
>
>
>
>
>I have a hard time making a valid evaluation of this topic. I suspect many people who will weigh in over the next few weeks are in a similar situation, even if they don't realize it. I include the IAOC in this characterization.
>
>It is very difficult to interpret the effect of potentially oppressive environments on the potentially oppressed if you are not a member of that group. It would be presumptuous for a majority straight population to make this decision on behalf of those people actually impacted.
>
>So I'm going to withhold expressing support for or opposition to the proposed course of action until we hear from GLBTQ IETFers in light of the information the IAOC is offering as rationale for continuing to pursue Singapore as a venue.
>
>But to be clear: I will almost certainly forgo attending a meeting at which any of my GLBTQ colleagues felt unwelcome. I would actively encourage others to adopt the same stance. Whether this forms a barrier to a successful meeting is up for debate; however, It would almost certainly be a setback for the working groups I chair.
>
>/a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>