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

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

Totally agree with you regarding the diversity issues, but we aren’t going, neither should, to sort out them via the venue-selection criteria. This is an internal IETF issue that we need to resolve internally.

I will love the IETF to have the power to change rules in countries that don’t respect the human rights, and if that was the case, I will be the first asking not to go to Singapore or whatever place, including (just to name a few additional aspects and not just diversity respect) those that still keep death penalty, allow people to carry guns, etc. (just to mention a few, and I’m sure other folks can disagree with me).

But unfortunately, I don’t think the IETF has this power, and our decisions to go or not, to a given venue because all those aspects, will not change the rules, or even have a minimal impact.

Saludos,
Jordi


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <[e-mail]> en nombre de Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
Responder a: <[e-mail]>
Fecha: sábado, 21 de mayo de 2016, 21:48
Para: Michal Krsek <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>On 5/21/16 11:23 AM, Michal Krsek wrote:
>> We as community need to weigh all conditions for the meeting, but I
>> agree with Jordi statement - the meeting is for making the work
>> done.
>
>I think if you look through past posts, you'd be hard-pressed
>to find anybody who's been more of an advocate for venue selection
>based on ability to support work than I have been.  I've also been
>very clear that I don't think that under our current set of
>conditions there's really anything to prevent us meeting in
>Singapore, which is truly unfortunate because there is absolutely
>no question that Singapore criminalizes relationships between men.
>Laws establishing this have been upheld by their highest court less
>than two years ago.
>
>However, the IETF has shown itself time and again to be
>retrograde on diversity issues, whether it's the conditions that
>allowed us to get into a situation where it never occurred to
>anybody involved in the decision-making process that there might be
>issues with Singapore, or hand-waving about the ridiculous
>Bits-and-Bytes situation in Prague, or the ongoing issues with
>leadership selection by the Nomcom.  And that's
>really not okay - it's common for other technical communities to
>be far more careful about these things.
>
>> Please do not forget for those of us who simply can't afford to
>> travel worldwide three times for year.
>
>I've been self-funding for years, having to skip the occasional
>meeting while chairing working groups and authoring documents
>and contributing to technical work.  That's a different issue.
>
>Anyway, given our organizational backwardness I really don't think
>there's anything that can be done here.  As I said, I am making
>a personal choice not to go to Singapore, but the broader situation
>looks pretty intractible.
>
>Melinda
>
>