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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sat, 21 May 2016 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.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 B906812B011; Sat, 21 May 2016 09:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] 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 JGEPI-DPRGBi; Sat, 21 May 2016 09:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E3E3128874; Sat, 21 May 2016 09:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3rBrKK0GKTz31C; Sat, 21 May 2016 18:45:57 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gEULh6-3tT62; Sat, 21 May 2016 18:45:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sat, 21 May 2016 18:45:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A1897801ED3; Sat, 21 May 2016 12:45:48 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca A1897801ED3
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898C4406B707; Sat, 21 May 2016 12:45:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 12:45:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605211237470.6270@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/URLBpO0Yr42Ey0WxduOWV8e6Q9U>
Cc: venue-selection@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: Sat, 21 May 2016 16:46:01 -0000

On Sat, 21 May 2016, Ted Hardie wrote:

>           Inclusiveness:
>                 We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
>                 anyone who wants to be involved.  Every country has limits on who
>                 it will permit within its borders.  This principle of
>                 inclusiveness militates against the selection of venues within
>                 countries that impose visa regulations and/or laws that
>                 effectively exclude people on the basis of race, religion, gender,
>                 sexual orientation, or national origin, and to a lesser extent,
>                 reduces the likelihood of selecting countries that use such
>                 attributes to make entry difficult.
> 
> 
>     This is cast in terms of entry and exclusion, but it is actually about participation.  If a country's rules prevent participation by a class of people, that country would be
> "militated against", in the words of the draft. 

So I can see this part.

>    In Singapore, there are classes of people who are effectively excluded (e.g. any same sex couple whose child is of age to need both parents present).   Whether any member of that
> class speaks up at the moment is not the issue, if we believe a family member of that class should be able to attend.

But this example does not relate to IETF participation.

If you pick local laws related to _anything_ as exclusion criteria, you
are going to cut out a lot of the world (also excluding the US)
which then runs against the diversity principle of holding meetings at
different places.

And what would you do with countries such as Morocco, where certain laws
only apply to their own citizens but not visitors (I can share a hotel
room with my foreign girlfriend but not with a Moroccon girlfriend)

I think it is important to keep the focus on "IETF participation" and
keep the secondary benefits of bringing family members as secondary
goals. That is we should consider these, but not completely lose
track of one of our primary goals of diversity.

Paul