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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 205DD12D94D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 10:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 mAx9kvrKbvQO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 10:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6596312D92D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 10:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3701; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1464111598; x=1465321198; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=8//btQaxSSFBbTRzV/KRiYz4a+/OoBW7nOGOVQqzwwg=; b=gl53l1tF/HdtxnwWMZS5kdet/8Yep9kn8fdTJfYWL7Gj8LDHgCCvJWMT aTvtfCuQ99kSzlIPQklZzhTRd1ewefN6OcQnbtR+DDbUy2TViXj6GyVno nS0bpaRhJ/TR/R/yQGr/Ay0Xt7zNVLTYgvFojgbS5X9Oo/elEPFysRorH 4=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CoBADOkERX/xbLJq1chDi4QYIdgXaGE?= =?us-ascii?q?QKBbRIBAQEBAQEBZSeEQwEBBCNWEAsYKgICVwYBDAgBAYgrsi+DB45TAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARAOiB2CVoEiF4JXgzCCWQEEmDeDK4FoiQ2JQYVbj0wmA?= =?us-ascii?q?TuCEyWBNzqKOQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,360,1459814400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="634790071"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 May 2016 17:39:56 +0000
Received: from [10.61.164.56] ([10.61.164.56]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4OHdtD3013452; Tue, 24 May 2016 17:39:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <D3662363.190A96%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <CAP8yD=spam0tQdfD-ssA6y_n-cuugHtrHKwTYieSruo8SMg_VQ@mail.gmail.com> <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> <826bf434-f943-6027-d146-ca728a7d2b40@cisco.com> <00e663ad-b880-913f-5135-0a6259578c46@nostrum.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <7b844748-ccdb-9b19-d57f-ea714ba02be9@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 19:39:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <00e663ad-b880-913f-5135-0a6259578c46@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="V1mvU22Si6s9VxMFFiNsVX8W9ERsOTCWD"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WLX3QNu-ca7-F8ossqHyUSxrpSI>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, 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 17:40:07 -0000

My point, Adam, is that the choice is really who draws the short straw,
for surely it will be drawn.


On 5/24/16 7:08 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 5/24/16 11:37, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> On 5/24/16 6:18 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>>> This shouldn't be that hard to think about. Would you have a greater
>>> objection to the IETF selecting (1) a locale that allows private
>>> citizen ownership of guns or (2) a country that refuses to recognize
>>> Israeli passports?
>> False choice.
>>
>>
>
> The question on the table in this sub-thread is: considering
> governmental policies that some subset of participants find
> objectionable (but which don't otherwise preclude meeting there),
> whether nondiscriminatory ones pose a greater or lesser issue for IETF
> venue selection than discriminatory ones. All I've done above is shift
> the class being targeted.
>
> If you want to take this logic at a slower pace, start with Jordi's
> original message listing six issues, except replace "LGBT Rights" with
> "Recognition of Israeli passports"; follow it with my response
> pointing out that #5 is different than the others; and then ask Yoav's
> question. How do you respond?
>
> /a
>
>