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

Cullen Jennings <> Mon, 23 May 2016 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7F312D0E8 for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 10:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 281LcKi1J3Bj for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 10:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CBD312D11A for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 10:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A34AC28044C; Mon, 23 May 2016 13:05:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Authenticated sender: with ESMTPSA id 291D3280334; Mon, 23 May 2016 13:05:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) by (trex/5.5.4); Mon, 23 May 2016 13:05:27 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F24172F4-8EAA-4474-A23F-1E617A5846F4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
From: Cullen Jennings <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 10:05:27 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To:, "" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
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: Mon, 23 May 2016 17:05:29 -0000


There becomes a time where things that may have been acceptable 100 years ago are something I am not willing to support. The expression “because it’s 2016” comes to mind. Ultimately the choice of venue location is up to the IETF community - yes - to execute the selection of a hotel it has to be delegated via multiple levels - but in the end, the community needs to be OK with the choice. Are they ? I’m not a fan of the current choice for IETF 100. 

And let me add … there have been many cases where the I* members and other participants, both men and women, needed to be able to bring family members for them to be able to participate. 

> On May 22, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Allison Mankin <> wrote:
> I can't write as eloquently as Ted, Melinda, Jon, and several others have, but I want to add another voice for trying to move IETF 100 out of Singapore.
> This Singapore law dictates unequal treatment of some active IETF meeting participants simply for living their normal lives.  Melinda's latest email says it very well:  "if people in opposite-sex relationship can and do bring their families, it's pretty clear what label the inability of same-sex partnered participants to do the same would​ f​all under." 
> ​It's in the hands of an authoritarian government to prosecute and maybe imprison our colleagues for their normal lives, while others in the IETF do not face this risk. This isn't the same as inconvenience.  ​It could result in imprisonment of individuals for travel plans that are exactly the same as other attendees​. ​ ​ I appreciate that the IAOC has resolved to consult experts on travel in future, ​and try to avoid this happening again, and I ​thank you for this.  ​If there are insurmountable reasons why we must stick to Singapore for IETF 100, please explain.  ​Count me as someone who thinks it is worth some cost to make the change.​
> Allison  
> On 21 May 2016 at 17:38, Peterson, Jon < <>> wrote:
> There's a reason this discussion has come up around IETF 100, though. While I'm sure IETF participants would be tempted to view this as just another meeting, there's a sense in which it has to be more than that. A lot of us have spent much of our careers working in this organization, and developing professional and personal relationships here. IETF 100 will be a work meeting and not a vacation opportunity, but I think attached to that work meeting should also be a celebration, and one where the personal relationships may matter more than usual.
> When I hear that long-time participants, people that have been around longer than me, feel like they need to sit this one out because of where it is happening, or worry about bringing their families to a meeting where we expect that these enduring relationships will be celebrated, that makes me think we as a community need to arrive at a consensus about whether or not this is okay, and if not, what we should do about it.
> We do need to set better general policies for venue selection, and it sounds like the IAOC is starting to look into that. But I think there's a further question about this specific meeting location that we should resolve with some urgency.
> Jon Peterson
> Neustar, Inc.