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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 22 May 2016 04:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2950C12D1A9; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m_Ze3rbgb0cT; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B226912D172; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id k23so27288837oih.0; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=B9CeRITHrs00HVMJmiKKk4E8uRKk8zxMtYt66z3xfRU=; b=gVVKqrp1E4IvssT0Obc9hiOw0x5rJwI98A2K0JjsGAFfwa8s9v8j0BKf4WObBp7bCI pOmEbF6xpstfeLl9RkACtLwSniGJakrEt7lKF+woMnM12aAVqrSjlQlsCIjmlt/RU+Bj Lbri94bQo8P1MCfofqNwWrdtagLyLKQrjkb9ihTHdfuxEQRzj+6X1HclI9w0wlDfDTfY 3TylazRWSD/5uLjyI8THM4r92QojaLbZ0Z7DOYXO6uEagfSw6iaQzCFucEufRK1BtTuU tLKk/PIo/YZmOBuZlVv7V70Tsebyjb6giFv7SVbpxyFLoOhtLGJElIN2zcA3GoYcyZE5 ODLw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=B9CeRITHrs00HVMJmiKKk4E8uRKk8zxMtYt66z3xfRU=; b=Iacu8a8J0UqYMRTBNI+j1btpx8zGwrbzo/QKfqRhv3eBWJNtdT9fE4hRvf2UC4Pt9j 90h1f4oWsnKmX8G+QbqoKVz1wB/iJCyH+2dqjNufDB56Hxq0UsKtlyQUt6ygPW52wMvS cxPrQTz1/D0oijp7xr+oMRzhYzS6gBflnIvtIu5tFRvcYPqAyqBWyMGeNiOb6zgoIaso 1c2mQ3u4uowcPmRryyh8lKNfXhpahiOG2zPJwqQGPxyj730pyObj+Xy/kntL40tRvIf4 kh7nJnfSyAXcSvmRObKcCrA4HvjX0YLrKu6dzTF8X0SdLzHu5g4I6vZX0VqMl92eB/iy NfQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJmPRw49ItISR9DPCL0xVleXVMkhdUmi9yWEe13yNhLl421tSCLFwnUT4dfjuc+QVEbP6m+KCP3pEFA5w==
X-Received: by 10.157.48.89 with SMTP id w25mr645135otd.32.1463890335006; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.195.137 with HTTP; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMGpKFiA78iQDFa5xaM0r0q_3LfLO_JKxaWJ9CBUTeaLg@mail.gmail.com> <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 00:11:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCQBdZOebSo9WwEd14+Bgh64Tpd+8BfF+uzbDRSV-gFxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11414ce06887db0533668790
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SnHXDJuRl4OEBYbsO4GwCFP8PlY>
Cc: venue-selection@ietf.org, IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:12:17 -0000

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 2:14 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi.palet@consulintel.es> 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