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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 2:14 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
[e-mail]> wrote:



>   I don’t think we should put on top priority having family in the
> meetings, because there is the option of not bringing the family and do the
> work.
>
>
This will not be an option for everyone, and there is a great risk of this
principle being applied in a way that it selectively disadvantages women
with infant children.



> Should we then find just one or two countries were everybody has no
> problem and always go to the same place and avoid spending the time in all
> this debates ?
>
> I do not believe novelty is a quality we should be optimizing for, so I am
fully on board with this theory.



>
> What happens if because terrorism a country turns to be unsafe and we have
> planned a meeting 2-3 years in advance? For example, Paris/France, as it
> was suggested as a possible venue for next meetings in Europe a few weeks
> ago, seems to be less and less safe. Should we cancel it as a possible
> venue, even if we announce it as a confirmed venue in a few weeks but
> terrorism increases there ?
>
>
We have to plan for situations changing.  There is a fair risk, for
example, that the U.S. will be in an inappropriate destination for our
meetings after the November elections complete, because it will be very
difficult for Muslim attendees.  Should that occur, I expect we will have
to move the planned meetings in the U.S.

I hope that we can increase the possibility of virtual meetings soon, so
that cancelled meetings can move online, and I believe that working toward
that should be a priority.

Ted