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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 DA51812D532 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 aX9m0IMJSDQS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x234.google.com (mail-lb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::234]) (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 4069B12D157 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-x234.google.com with SMTP id k7so8862248lbm.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QBo1J+SgSYXp+6Svzj1T51IvXNM7cVWNuC7zQbANnpA=; b=ttbVBcM1HOJQZluVygHNnrazwJdCoLm6uhaswzTIMB8laisCviJiZCDTT9lt5RnCAU 5BqUr2a9fT/oLFl7plGpBF2rzxks0VgjaEqRg0KichH/dlv1TNq9Nu7+rZpLiOq0QH+b 9oUXUhY+5E3QpH62NFvVsQ9P93QGBR39+cCvWntpSzRmn+J4KVEJehaIb6bV14So4P7x Q9aL5KwbfvGPJs4MdvRv1qp8mWcgQQrBErTvImTOGkVjr1EXuoOQ2y1vxk56sP/wWRkM IcllLNu3Sv3/BYCiiwPqTvw2/Tfz7NGQtpRmoldGc21AHRSP4Sy2WP95CfM4mtdW4XWc padA==
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=QBo1J+SgSYXp+6Svzj1T51IvXNM7cVWNuC7zQbANnpA=; b=E85iEn9i3Mo3Ehn5Ufe+btnce22Hpe3v88UYJ/vR923K0U5umM9lqM6q9+00mBZlf/ mPocVu4F7AmpXsTTtUaITLPjUNnAXwQQ9N7iAJDyObES/f2WQRO504hLPmXqLujEfltq 4wYQKfua5rm4GlLfk/wY07SfBgMf9YbBJj1Dux0QUTUH91WHW4yh6B1ZvG2mS2nhgt22 AEmk7g+vWqpnyQpXl0IzHnsJjjpUUVDltex1GISqEKKGV67ZiYEEo1B1PALZNj5HDe+D LTC+5Nqbrq4MlZUcdXmepYp8pYPV5XRfGHgEoYm22037bFX4QFUWsHGILq1jmfsmujPN 3lEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXne0JQB5rRvpzD0M5lXX+RPVnEGgLKP1ZO7O5fGcQzHiICqTXsqSGsGjpFJe6VD2PIcsGdYlkqhNuhXg==
X-Received: by 10.112.10.37 with SMTP id f5mr8230841lbb.58.1464118919285; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.153.135 with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rfvYrW5TDCzdUoFeeQFnsDejWFn7jH+20xnJ4QHEsJ=2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D3662363.190A96%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <CAHkmkwtEtDk4sPv3GjkrSFqOdRV3HBA5i2_uZu3X2D4RxSF4wA@mail.gmail.com> <2e95fd51-23b8-39e7-d4ca-a9fc9d49559c@gmail.com> <CAHkmkwsf3YfFfR7jUHYnaw6dCrasMOazjbXPJRRhZS28k8HV0w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1605241405210.28372@uplift.swm.pp.se> <714DDDE2-562D-488A-AAAA-F8DE3C2CA97D@consulintel.es> <FE76F502-617E-4190-BFF5-649EC9CFECAC@consulintel.es> <CABcZeBMPAFdLwZTr7TCJC-tZ+X=CKGzQ7Jp0zqDO86PdPn6YvQ@mail.gmail.com> <8D82EA4F-1275-436C-8030-1E799F5D7F59@consulintel.es> <CABcZeBOCtk6JK_3w2_L87oyze+dfgy7fFyU7QrGmGgEtta1oZA@mail.gmail.com> <1CA535AB-CAC4-49CB-B094-AAA7FE3119FB@consulintel.es> <2b01eb8f-d319-7d20-0f84-9a774f9e0e44@nostrum.com> <C01AE269-3168-4B6A-B8D8-D97230288302@gmail.com> <8161273d-97c2-2757-5f0c-6146d0b297aa@nostrum.com> <E51DA1A2-AB3E-42F7-BC0A-308BE6B58580@gmail.com> <2270ea7c-cd6d-c3d5-e768-6d1f0ae15605@nostrum.com> <216D2B11-5E07-4DBE-BCC4-0A8ABCCB15B7@gmail.com> <cf9ad015-ef7d-6e11-44e8-6a0fb5a78b91@gmail.com> <EBBFC64A-C730-47D8-8F66-E4C7773A0344@gmail.com> <D5E06CF1-9C2D-41BE-8635-1F73321986EC@consulintel.es> <CAG4d1rfvYrW5TDCzdUoFeeQFnsDejWFn7jH+20xnJ4QHEsJ=2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:41:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kG2_P5yBEOrajkNXZms438xRZuQTTcPnWnGDoqkYZCUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113606dc17e74c05339bc0fe
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/U0V41-kWEXgogfEWDl6rQFYarcA>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 19:42:04 -0000

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 <akatlas@gmail.com> 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 <
> jordi.palet@consulintel.es> 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 <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Yoav Nir <
>> ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
>> Responder a: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
>> Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 20:52
>> Para: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
>> CC: <ietf@ietf.org>
>> Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path
>> forward and request for input
>>
>> >
>> >> On 24 May 2016, at 9:28 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>