Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

"Leslie Daigle" <> Fri, 27 May 2016 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F3712B03E for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 08:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MJE8MluaRbHa for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 08:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A85C4128B44 for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 08:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246322005E80D; Fri, 27 May 2016 08:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;; bh=U mWGSr0gSxGGi9yo3OIO78UTknI=; b=bG/T/o5oqxYkTi96X+jOOEhHkfpNCrDkh w/XMa8lLMogP6sd5T1r0O+IUj24cUj/GUZReGRwgLRyPYAL8m2gfXCGl40Rov1QT Q98ioqrl+0kv/xDYyKzRMxxOYvfr7aYvMgPpQ3vdIAifrXY//YTtWwmf0NPyTrkc Oi3db+Di+A=
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 674422005E802; Fri, 27 May 2016 08:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Leslie Daigle" <>
To: "Melinda Shore" <>, "Margaret Cullen" <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:52:32 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
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: Fri, 27 May 2016 15:52:39 -0000

On the question of sharing a site before signing a contract — since 
the Buenos Aires plenary, the IAOC has asked for input before inking 
contracts.  That is what prompted the creation of the venue-selection 
maildrop address, and one (I expect, soon to be two) solicitations for 
input on particular places.[0]

There are always challenges of finding the right timing to ask for 
input, and going forward we are going to have to refine how and when we 
do that.  Getting input before signing is obviously better than after, 
but getting input when you are otherwise ready to sign is still late.  
Asking for input while things are still completely hypothetical is 
potentially too soon (can get people spun up about things that won’t 
work out for practical reasons).

But, yes, this is a good idea, it would have saved everyone a lot of 
grief if we’d done it before, and we’re working on it now.

[0] We had a contract ready for signature for a site we had every reason 
to believe was acceptable.  Having just had it explained to us in short 
words that the community has more perspectives :-) , we sought them.  
Thanks to everyone who contributed.


Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
On 26 May 2016, at 16:28, Melinda Shore wrote:

> On 5/26/16 12:21 PM, Margaret Cullen wrote:
>> What about the IAOC writing to the IETF list and/or recent attendees
>> when they are considering going to a new country, asking if anyone
>> has any feedback on the idea?  And then considering that feedback
>> _before_ making a final decision, signing a contract, etc?
> I think that's reasonable.  I also think a greater diversity
> of IAOC and meeting committee members would help, although
> it's clearly not possible to be comprehensive.  But, one of
> the interesting things that happened as this began to unfold
> is that a bunch of people responded to the announcement with
> an immediate "Uh-oh," while the IAOC clearly had had no idea
> that there was an issue.  It was known within the community
> that there was a problem, and if there had been a way to provide
> feedback prior to the announcement things may have gone quite
> differently.
> So:
>> It seems to me that if this issue had been raised before the IAOC had
>> made a non-refundable $80K deposit and had negotiated $150K in
>> benefits from the Singapore government, there would have been a lot
>> more latitude for choosing a different location.
> Yes.
> Melinda