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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Sat, 21 May 2016 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0121D12B076 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iA0c0BlbTVx2 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E22B9128B44 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-MDAV-Processed:, Sat, 21 May 2016 23:34:02 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50000532215.msg for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 23:34:02 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Sat, 21 May 2016 23:34:02 +0200 (not processed: spam filter heuristic analysis disabled)
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.16.0.160506
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:34:01 +0200
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
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: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:34:09 -0000

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.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <> en nombre de Melinda Shore <>
Responder a: <>
Fecha: sábado, 21 de mayo de 2016, 21:48
Para: Michal Krsek <>
CC: <>
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.