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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Singapore is one of the most popular convention/conference cities in the world [1]. I doubt that would be the case all people/organizations meeting there would be considered "insensitive to diversity". Regarding diversity, note that Singapore is one of the best example you can find of a society where people of different race, religion and background live peacefully together. That of course does not solve the LGBT issue, but claiming that Singapore is anti-diversity is simply wrong. Some reading: http://www.cooksister.com/2015/02/exploring-singapores-amazing-cultural-diversity.html

Also, the fact that we are having this discussion, where a number of individuals (including local people from Singapore) have provided input and information, shows that IETF *IS* doing something :)

Regards,

Christer

[1] https://skift.com/2013/05/16/the-worlds-most-popular-international-meeting-destinations/


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Rich Kulawiec
Sent: 27 May 2016 20:12
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:34:53AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> It seems to me that, if the IETF does nothing, it could provide 
> critics of the IETF community to assert that the IETF is insensitive 
> to issues of diversity and that its role and work should be discounted 
> because they represent only privileged "majority" interests.

I have reluctantly levelled this criticism because I believe it to be true: the IETF's fixation on physical meetings means that only the privileged few can attend: this mechanism selects for those with time (their own or their employer's), money (their own or their employer's), the ability to travel, the willingness to travel, the freedom to travel (e.g., ability to leave family and work and other responsibilities), the willingness to undertake all the risks associated with travel (legal or otherwise, see current discussion thread), and so on.

If all the time, money, and effort that has gone into this discussion and this meeting had been applied to virtualizing meetings, it would have done much more to broaden participation not just geographically but demographically.  And it would alleviate the need to ever have this conversation again -- instead of necessitating it repeatedly, something I'm sad to say that I think may become more rather than less likely as political/legal conditions shift in various countries.

---rsk