Re: Concerns about Singapore

Yoav Nir <> Mon, 11 April 2016 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3102C12EEC5 for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u5lbL-EJ8RJN for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E496B12EEBA for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n3so106277861wmn.0 for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1OA1tPH815bTL8KIU1EcKs/CHG1OQS0Qh0OSIET4PiI=; b=TJQt/JCBnwjm0HldAYEdfFWofmUhwYzW7WEBKppJsc5oe8dz6HmdM48IB1RXVyYp5l REv8XfFoyj0hOIrSHoVGBFetAq3az7S/NN0ghae3MgpXhTXXdNma3zZxmZlqGbNp4sD9 Cdbca0Sl0r+NAdyPeF31bSDM/oAnV0TkTLuBMuKTwOho/kg9VPn68zehUrFG9c6TvM3R mV0bg+7FW+TxKShx+vFPehTVdzmvNNXqWpMfCStMdhIjDqklHSUYjYh69s+Latx6gINU IQOlfM4SC6l3bpOVA1pi4nxq11txaZZTFFgKHkpvvufbBOrBsTJMGhOcR1icRFBbACLM BAyw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1OA1tPH815bTL8KIU1EcKs/CHG1OQS0Qh0OSIET4PiI=; b=DHA0LbR2tkOt6M9/TOPe4Nu4Peqjddt8J/G6j7SlQ55yuOrrHWHeyG/C4PDjN83n3v WR/4ashtqYJWHiqyPWq9RxqqomiRLcaSWqZO6bC+f0WMA565Xn/EHxVDWOGjuUW72G3g 0kyiuBYtiQOY/dGQdUus5dp8sRMDMq/YYe6tkQsuR3DCm4bHH4Xeuf4RYIRcTer18mbW +pGMooCO69u6dYphxCMyM/RqcPJ32eFLq7u3DSitLi0OSXhB/MoyeFtONWbZyGq4vMwm ddPQFU2066DdOpp7v7WOS7oQswxBZBksku4A1pkhhPoEyeNRFYX/7q6Bd5Hss8B3v+VC A9zQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKY6SJMWtJVM385BTs1a/geYFSPbhnuQZVRfmRy0wsHYCT4C26UmSv+Gzzj5c7hKw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ik7mr26796861wjb.150.1460383625462; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id xx3sm28111858wjc.32.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
From: Yoav Nir <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:07:03 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Rich Kulawiec <>, ietf <>
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: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:07:11 -0000

> On 11 Apr 2016, at 4:01 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
> Also, if you live in a country with censorship, or with low bandwidth, it's possible that the only way to attend an IETF meeting will be in person.   It would be nice if there were a bright line to draw on one side of which is total inclusiveness, but there is not.   We need to make both kinds of meeting work.
> What Stephen said is right--the IAOC needs to systematically, rather than informally, analyze what it is that needs to be done in confidence, and expose the rest to public view.   I know this is non-trivial, and I do not say this in the spirit of bashing the IAOC, who work very hard for us with little reward other than our complaining.
> If I were on the IAOC right now, I would be thinking about how to get off of it.   I've been in the situation of having what seemed like a big chunk of the IETF upset at me, and it's pretty soul-crushing.   Nevertheless, I think what Stephen proposes is the thing the IAOC can do that is most likely to prevent future woe of this kind.

I think Dave Crocker’s suggestion that the IAOC advertise the countries / cities it is considering might go a long way to help. If we had heard two years ago that the IAOC was considering Singapore, the objection we heard at the plenary would have been voiced then. In that case, the IAOC might go elsewhere or it might get assurances from Singaporean authorities or it might even decide to go for it anyway. But they would not be caught off-guard as they were last Wednesday.

Similarly for other countries or locations. This is not enough to solve all inclusiveness issues and there are deeper issues that need addressing, but this is low-hanging fruit IMO.