Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 F09EF12D800 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 np-ssELv63L6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::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 0389B12D6CA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id h19so78234295ywc.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3c1bgU9TESSzgnyCA1t9uXtwJK2BvxaeOt9XQ8sZ0C0=; b=BoLNb7H5zI6ThserOfEBce/J2Um1qrdFFe+leZw9KIxHrvTaYZjgTyZ5BMLxBB+maU qWBEQnfCOPMlFXv2rU6oBiRqSpDntcLxIS6DRO4g8JpOEdkMWqvej1ZcAg14zlqSxP/e 1eGw6Vrbb4gBdJWGUFWWJIQ64jWtXlYwcOC5WXm4POcrWO9Uxgx3/QNIW95piPRe4Z0t rZgaZSyS8Gysbist1Kx5sspBO5KZYEggZPFQT2J++9iLi9rMjfR61jbcFOhcKv9Qlewj WzdjmEu23cSxLSUHsG5fe3WXTs6JiN6HoIBcRGbM9qArPmcsAK5c+N+X50la0wBayILp vnww==
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=3c1bgU9TESSzgnyCA1t9uXtwJK2BvxaeOt9XQ8sZ0C0=; b=AKkKiLduB2vksbkNshssJZKBuuaAYseqJtiar7aanWTjGHwnyXF0GR9YX7n5BAD5Y4 Rv2IYYM3stPJqvY1Cl10QsBZwBi/ECqcBy7wLO3HLEya7TZfhj8Obd6WLiLv4FsYkH7E mKC/F0a2/jRQucIqRNxm83VvBDz0AjaFd6CKxgf6AnhP9CKnB/FcC/RIEPhcgCQSqpxk lv7+IdpiRVvcMrHdPN+z7+TP8dSzjeeq4waqiNSGQZuct6P1l5l8N9qM2EXnF/5LOxGr 4qB36m5GjRTrn6JjTGqmeSoSRJPuYIHdsgrlidE/uZTM9W4WmACepXYKp3jhL6cNRoQq QUbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLccHIem7YDsNJrySKOWAksoIizkucrhTMgfBsFODWjXjHX+XV6xjPzAUUAILhF+9CBcLa89khmRwqX9+/T
X-Received: by 10.129.146.87 with SMTP id j84mr6404651ywg.39.1464273098061; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.198.68 with HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=FurL9T_UDGnoWRf3FKiCHv49w9cPLo3Op_=-JXrUZvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5DCBE505-C6A5-47D6-84DB-0B5887A80FDA@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3LatfcL26d3RQdfkh3VqpJkq1iUbnHAryShGWgYb8TyQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=FurL9T_UDGnoWRf3FKiCHv49w9cPLo3Op_=-JXrUZvA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 23:31:15 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2sYmE9JoROO2B9w0T1mJ=D3z-dvjGRY73H+38mz6+e=g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0921feddc1140533bfa54f
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VMuRHraDSU9DU2CtwzZ0Qk90WJU>
Cc: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@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: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:31:50 -0000

I looked at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=mtgvenue
but didn't see much. A search for "singapore" finds 9 messages, only 2 of
which seem relevant to this issue.

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>; wrote:

> You are probably looking for the mtgvenue mailing list, and the consensus
> (we hope) document that is being worked on there.
>
> However, that doesn't help us with the IETF 100 problem.
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>;
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>;
>> wrote:
>>
>>> we get to say _this_ to the Singapore government, who wants us to meet
>>> there enough that they have offered us $150K in incentives for us to come
>>> there:
>>>
>>> > “    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
>>
>>
>> Where was this discussion held? I don't recall it here on the IETF list.
>>
>> In addition to the obvious impact on future venue selection, which I
>> assume has already been debated (Are we going to have to stop holding IETFs
>> in Asia for a few years? What does that mean for IETF participants who live
>> in Asia? etc.) I would assume there are other local practices such as free
>> speech or unfettered Internet access that the IETF might want to take a
>> stand on. How do we decide which ones those are?
>>
>> As a community-driven organization, we make most decisions via community
>> process (e.g., we make technical decisions via rough consensus). Should we
>> be working on putting together such a process to make this sort of decision?
>>
>> It seems bad to make this sort of decision on an ad-hoc, case-by-case
>> basis as appears to be happening here.
>>
>
>