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

Christer Holmberg <> Fri, 27 May 2016 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782C112DB19 for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 10:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NuCviYgXgoeu for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 10:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D574A12D798 for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 10:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79486d0000069d0-fd-574884953c47
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 5F.95.27088.59488475; Fri, 27 May 2016 19:32:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Fri, 27 May 2016 19:32:01 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Rich Kulawiec <>, "" <>
Subject: RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Thread-Index: AQHRttH9ze38Ez/LyUq95khqjiTyfp/Mw8iAgAAHrYCAABs7gIAAIzwg
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 17:32:01 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7ge7UFo9wg2ubhCyebZzPYrHi41NG ByaP4w8aWDyWLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXx9cVJxoItIhVfFnewNjC+EOhi5OCQEDCR ePrfr4uRE8gUk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAEUaJC7cfsEM4Sxgl1s9fwgrSwCZgIdH9TxukQUTAQWLG jwcsILawgI/E0RXT2CDivhILnixlh7DdJNpOvAeLswioSrw79IwJZAwvUM262zwQ428D7erd BFbPKaArsXPfGlYQmxHooO+n1jCB2MwC4hK3nsxngjhUQGLJnvPMELaoxMvH/1ghbCWJRbc/ Q9XrSCzY/YkNwtaWWLbwNVg9r4CgxMmZT1gmMIrOQjJ2FpKWWUhaZiFpWcDIsopRtDi1OCk3 3chIL7UoM7m4OD9PLy+1ZBMjMEoObvltsIPx5XPHQ4wCHIxKPLwPCt3DhVgTy4orcw8xSnAw K4nwnmj2CBfiTUmsrEotyo8vKs1JLT7EKM3BoiTO6/9SMVxIID2xJDU7NbUgtQgmy8TBKdXA qF99vnNt8LHVm5Wib/pmz2Zl2PY/xeqvWEn7z2kvffb/mrGz+ozrC6GpqYdSzsd3Vl3wPJZ8 8uGX6XGf+9m+cFofjJrWNb1g9fUT/8u1VH60xB26mLCq88vbi8b6e/7uj+SKfLPC9tGyqWxq LzaqF+nNF4na175YvDmp62OreIrFU0E+nqeOHEosxRmJhlrMRcWJAJ9xpe6OAgAA
Archived-At: <>
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: Fri, 27 May 2016 17:32:14 -0000


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:

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 :)




-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [] On Behalf Of Rich Kulawiec
Sent: 27 May 2016 20:12
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.