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

Allison Mankin <> Mon, 23 May 2016 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87B812D61C; Sun, 22 May 2016 20:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3FO8_A5Ru1mi; Sun, 22 May 2016 20:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BA7012D1CF; Sun, 22 May 2016 20:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k23so51623739oih.0; Sun, 22 May 2016 20:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=ap4yZHwoZftUMEtqrYw7IqGkCWQzU2TdPivxpYOWPHg=; b=CENDT0AYgfkf8W24Fjv3iWZxEFAHSILrQjnVDdQbk8wy76hl+XEQll/QqKemP03eaI v0Mfftm3g8sGRwgyif8M5/fFNA3Sit8FkRKcM3B8qU3lVFAKP4Tl6k2Ij9Qik4bLqRly kNELQosxjquNQdmioJK/W8a5rGdyid/grjj58ZoPWEPLbJ/Amtm3v6FjGoCS5i8t+RkR wTRFIRE/ARQ1VIDeRzGv1T6CA/uCnFtKbOhuchVDz5AZV0esx3GeyKwtdvd7UmrePa6a TeJ9ivJl7/WAP2e5R20qlhNozwExIfqAccYM5/zayv2Ld2uwt6RVb5ZNkwU0zkoJPKVS gLNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=ap4yZHwoZftUMEtqrYw7IqGkCWQzU2TdPivxpYOWPHg=; b=fDsy7vP8rwfXfP1yFj23CSVnCEFRDp+lCV0wFvuvr58Sq1+0Bkg/kdf4VUHmv9zoLt k3VaQ9aiFGTk3AfFVslcU6DPQ8cJMUE1aoQci5wyDHWsyjUOPJhy1mVEmTLxVcaUETxC +5m8C6EvlQGNW9uWLIV6RA5yNGGC8V+dphwnyvAn65EEPMQDdY9J38PabxD72OhE/Qyr VWPLEA/f7zLJJEkK8SWHOffCjAx+hCi/9RDK0Iz84TUSeXcTbI6i7Hl+dbNZsYqYTdjt 46V0GhaAT614dnXk0+JcBQb/62sqhNXuuAvumJgubALW1g1pTZV2UsRKlbGdwslfLMut gbZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJ+BIU4RYSjAAfBjxXCJGLJZV9Ei5YMKuAA7ALJBzAJQHknvNfEsQQa+4r9ce9LKaxoygOzZ2UZDfopWg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id c97mr2093308otb.186.1463972930676; Sun, 22 May 2016 20:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 22 May 2016 20:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 23:08:50 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
From: Allison Mankin <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1154367e709e053379c2ed"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 03:08:54 -0000

I can't write as eloquently as Ted, Melinda, Jon, and several others have,
but I want to add another voice for trying to move IETF 100 out of

This Singapore law dictates unequal treatment of some active IETF meeting
participants simply for living their normal lives.  Melinda's latest email
says it very well:  "if people in opposite-sex relationship can and do
bring their families, it's pretty clear what label the inability of same-sex
partnered participants to do the same would
​ f​
all under."

​It's in the hands of an authoritarian government to prosecute and maybe
imprison our colleagues for their normal lives, while others in the IETF do
not face this risk. This isn't the same as inconvenience.  ​
It could result in imprisonment of individuals for travel plans that are
exactly the same as other attendees
​. ​
 I appreciate that the IAOC has resolved to consult experts on travel in
​and try to avoid this happening again, and I ​
thank you for this.
​If there are insurmountable reasons why we must stick to Singapore for
IETF 100, please explain.  ​
Count me as someone who thinks it is worth some cost to make the change.​


On 21 May 2016 at 17:38, Peterson, Jon <> wrote:

> There's a reason this discussion has come up around IETF 100, though. While I'm sure IETF participants would be tempted to view this as just another meeting, there's a sense in which it has to be more than that. A lot of us have spent much of our careers working in this organization, and developing professional and personal relationships here. IETF 100 will be a work meeting and not a vacation opportunity, but I think attached to that work meeting should also be a celebration, and one where the personal relationships may matter more than usual.
> When I hear that long-time participants, people that have been around longer than me, feel like they need to sit this one out because of where it is happening, or worry about bringing their families to a meeting where we expect that these enduring relationships will be celebrated, that makes me think we as a community need to arrive at a consensus about whether or not this is okay, and if not, what we should do about it.
> We do need to set better general policies for venue selection, and it sounds like the IAOC is starting to look into that. But I think there's a further question about this specific meeting location that we should resolve with some urgency.
> Jon Peterson
> Neustar, Inc.