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

Eliot Lear <> Thu, 26 May 2016 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C7C12D884 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 23:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H7IKOgRmOSSC for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 23:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 398F912D883 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 23:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2825; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1464245908; x=1465455508; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=pgEbruq3QKapwd+A+TLlUdFGicac5TsUcMgovgICA9s=; b=BdcNrYvW+0min4G3+bR/yT07edgfUT2/gJxPK1uWnaQtlwaxA3cUg2K5 rNTZL4T5t5bYMrA7nWLiyWc2BZx+yS4cIwpK+/ofbf+/i7J0GNFk6J8cp iAQpF4R1XP+jz3K+gLTwyknRmNg61hzuP3AvUF9YWLEwdl5v0ktVQuL4d 4=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,366,1459814400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="637670553"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 May 2016 06:58:26 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4Q6wPUC021207; Thu, 26 May 2016 06:58:25 GMT
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Cullen Jennings <>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Eliot Lear <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 08:58:25 +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: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jReCc7IfKAopu3M9pK8tal4kUAnfkx3ek"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 06:58:37 -0000


On 5/26/16 7:33 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> Of course I am in favour of openness and would like many nations but I
> don’t think it is realistic to enable all nations. I deliberately did
> not add that to the list because I think the topic of duration to get
> visa for various countries is not the topic we are dealing with here.

Quite right for we would surely eliminate all of North America as a
venue selection, the seemingly only viable alternative.  However,
because at the end of the day some people of certain nationalities will
be excluded, I'm quite certain they would feel discriminated against,
should the venue be moved.  These issues are, therefore, linked.  And so
now it is a matter of who gets included and who gets excluded.  I like
something Ted wrote earlier, that a static approach to this can lead to
systemic exclusion.  I think it's safe to say that's happening.