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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

If we are going to bring breastfeeding into this, which seems reasonable,
it's worth asking if someone can actually construct a situation in which
the breastfeeding mother would be present with the baby, but the local
government would not recognize _her_ parental rights.   Or is the concern
that if she were incapacitated, the other parent would be unable to take
responsibility for the baby?   I think you have to engage in some pretty
significant contortions to construct this as a problem that the IAOC
absolutely must, out of fairness, solve.   That said, I have no personal
experience in this, so I'm asking, not telling: is there a scenario where
this would actually be a problem?   How likely is this in practice?


On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Jordi,
>
> I've never heard any indication that the extremely minimal companion stuff
> (a mailing list and one gathering that the companions pay for) has factored
> into the IAOC venue-selection.
>
> It's always easy to give up - in the abstract - things that don't affect
> you.
>
> In this particular instance, the concern is about keeping legal
> guardianship & medical concerns in a
> country whose laws may not recognize familial ties legal in other
> countries.   There can certainly be personal
> reasons why bringing a child along is necessary - and they don't require
> others' judgement as to whether those
> reasons are "deserving" enough.
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> +1  to drop companion stuff IF it is increasing the IAOC venue-selection
>> criteria difficulties, and I want to make it clear, even if it affects me
>> personally at any time.
>>
>> Even if is only for simple curiosity (I don’t think our decisions must
>> consider other organizations decisions, but is always good to know), it
>> will be nice to know if venue-selection-criteria of other similar
>> organizations take in consideration possible “difficulties” for
>> companion/familties.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>>
>>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: ietf <[e-mail]> en nombre de Yoav Nir <
>> [e-mail]>
>> Responder a: <[e-mail]>
>> Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 20:52
>> Para: Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
>> CC: <[e-mail]>
>> Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path
>> forward and request for input
>>
>> >
>> >> On 24 May 2016, at 9:28 PM, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 5/24/16 10:14 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> >>> Then I guess where I disagree with both you and Melinda is that I
>> don’t
>> >>> think the ability to bring families along should be an important
>> >>> consideration.
>> >>
>> >> I don't, either, but as long as the IETF does, and provides
>> >> a companion program, I feel quite strongly that IETF travel
>> >> should be equally accessible to all families.  I'd personally
>> >> be good with dropping the companion stuff UNLESS it was done
>> >> specifically to avoid problems with travel to places hostile
>> >> to same-sex partners.
>> >
>> >I would be happy with dropping the companion stuff for many reasons. The
>> fact that it adds considerations and criteria to the IAOC’s decision
>> process that already has way too many criteria is just another reason to
>> drop it.
>> >
>> >Yoav
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>