Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Fri, 27 May 2016 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
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 48F1F12D15E; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.325
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 1A7ZsXBh_2tW; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3F512D6DA; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [206.123.31.226] (h226.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.226]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4615447769; Fri, 27 May 2016 12:04:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:04:23 -0400
Message-ID: <43ED8099-4AAF-45DA-B8B5-9F15FB937DD6@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_F6C6B765-6474-4A99-AB40-E66E1FB17D0A_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Twh0NQf3-l_aRXRlvijbuv-6dXw>
Cc: recentattendees@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: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:04:30 -0000

We went to China some time ago. Related to some of the possible criteria 
we may use to select a venue/country such as the issue for Singapore, 
would China be eligible against those criteria? Also considering that 
China brings a significant number of attendees?

Marc.

On 25 May 2016, at 18:08, IAOC Chair wrote:

> All,
>
> In the IAOC's previous message on this topic we stated that the IAOC 
> believed that it is possible to hold a successful meeting in 
> Singapore, and that meeting in Singapore is the best option for IETF 
> 100.  This statement was based on several factors, including 
> evaluation of the site based on the requirements and process now being 
> updated and tracked in 
> draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02.  In particular, 
> this included consulting with the additional information sources 
> identified in the document (specialty travel services, etc), and no 
> specific issues were identified as to actual situation in Singapore.  
> More detail on the information we have to hand is provided below.
>
> Additional arguments have come forward since our earlier messages,  
> which leads us to continue exploring.  The IETF Chair has been in 
> touch with the meeting host, which is obviously another factor in 
> whether we can/should move.   But we need to make a decision, so this 
> message contains such information as we have at present.  We 
> understand that it is difficult to express a view about what to do in 
> the absence of known alternatives; but we do not know what the 
> alternatives are now, and we need urgently to make a decision, so we 
> are sharing the incomplete information we have in the interests of 
> transparency.
>
>
> Laying this out in a pro/con format:
>
>
> Not Singapore:
> --------------
>
> If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the 
> onward positive impacts include:
>
> 	. We might have the opportunity to establish the meeting in a venue 
> that permits more IETF participants to be comfortable being present 
> and engaging in a celebration of this milestone meeting, which is 
> important to some.
>
>
>
> If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the 
> onward negative impacts include:
>
> 	. Losing approximately $80,000 (USD) hotel agreement cancellation 
> fee[1]
>
> 	. Losing up to approximately $150,000 (USD) in Singapore government 
> incentives [2]
>
> 	. Re-prioritizing people time to find a new location (the IAD, 
> Secretariat staff) who have full plates for lining up other future 
> meetings; there’s an unknown amount of impact in terms of how that 
> impacts *other* meetings (N.B.:  some of this effort is already 
> underway to obtain the information on possible alternatives and 
> outline the pros/cons outlined here).
>
> 	. Likelihood of IETF 100 in Asia is very small — we have few 
> prospects and it takes us months to get all the pieces aligned to get 
> to a signed contract in Asia (Singapore took over a year).  This would 
> create additional challenges for our Asian community members (travel 
> distance, visas).
>
> 	. Possible shift of dates — to be able to find a venue elsewhere 
> that works
>
> We have some wiggle room in the point about time to find a new venue 
> insofar as it would be easiest to use a North American site that we 
> have used before.   If we have to consider non-North American, and/or 
> new venues where a site visit is needed, effort and cost will be 
> higher.
>
> Note, we should only cancel the Singapore contract once we know that 
> an alternative venue, that is acceptable to community, is ready to put 
> under contract.   The cost of cancellation ($80k now) goes up to $192k 
> if we don’t cancel before November 2016 (i.e., a few months from 
> now).
>
>
> We do have to give the hotel a reason for canceling our contract:
>
> Reasons for Cancellation of IETF 100 Meeting in Singapore, and the 
> IAOC understands that to be:
>
> “    Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men and
>     preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create
>     difficulties for same-sex partners and their children; these have
>     discouraged affected members of our community from participating
>     at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced
>     others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them.
>
>
>     Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the 
> meeting
>     in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.”
>
>
>
> If we stick with Singapore for IETF 100:
> ----------------------------------------
>
> If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward
> positive impacts include:
>
> 	. we have a functional meeting venue set for our 3rd meeting of 2017
>
> 	. meeting site research resources can remain focused on filling in 
> the remaining gaps in the 3-4 year timeframe
>
> 	. we don’t have the financial hit of the cancellation fee, and 
> possible loss of government incentives
>
> If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward 
> negative impacts include:
>
> 	. we have a meeting at a location where some community members will 
> perceive themselves as unwelcome and unsafe, unable to bring family
>
> 	. possibly fewer attendees than we might otherwise expect — which 
> is a consideration for both getting work done and financial reasons 
> (registration fees per person)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The above is the practical information as we can best scope it.
>
>
> If you would like to provide some considered feedback on this matter, 
> please feel free to send it to venue-selection@ietf.org .  Please note 
> that mailing list is a PUBLICLY archived “drop box” [3].
>
>
> Leslie Daigle, for the IAOC.
>
>
> [1] The cancellation fee can be recovered if it is used as a deposit 
> at a later meeting with those hotels in Singapore, if it is before 
> 2020; for this discussion, it’s perhaps best to consider it gone.
>
> [2] Government business incentives are not unusual; we might obtain 
> these in another country hosting IETF 100, but we are late to be 
> expecting incentives and opportunities for good deals, and are 
> unlikely to get this in a North America venue.
>
> [3] The venue-selection mailing list is not open for subscription, and 
> it is not intended to archive dynamic conversations (i.e., don’t cc 
> it on an e-mail discussion thread, because there will be too many 
> addressees and your mail won’t go through).
>
> -- 
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------