Concerns about Singapore

Jari Arkko <> Thu, 07 April 2016 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102A312D0CA for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zujukRZl0z30 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD5C12D195 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED24F2CCBF; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:31:23 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PyD3cC4BvorZ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:31:23 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [] ( [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A966C2CC95; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:31:22 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from
From: Jari Arkko <>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EFEF6A6C-B6BC-44C4-854C-09820332102B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Subject: Concerns about Singapore
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:31:20 -0300
Message-Id: <>
To: Ted Hardie <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:34:42 -0000


As you’ve seen from Leslie’s message, the IAOC has taken very seriously the concerns you expressed in the plenary about Singapore.

I think we all thought we were sensitive to these types of issues, but clearly we weren’t. Sorry.

I know that I am personally still in the education phase about the situation. But I wanted to follow-up with two points from an IETF perspective. First, the ability of our participants to enter our meetings without concerns is of crucial importance for us. And second, as the IAOC determines in more detail what our options are, I wanted to say that we want to communicate that assessment to the IETF community and work with the community to determine what the best path forward with IETF #100 is.

In addition, the longer term process about explicit documentation of community’s wishes regarding the meetings selection process and requirements is already in progress. The MTGVENUE BOF will be meeting today Thursday at 16:20 in Pacifico A. Everybody, please contribute to that.

Jari Arkko, IETF Chair