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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 21 May 2016 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 C839712B065 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 s9DdDVGVcsko for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F165A12B061 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id b66so31441140pfb.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fvVlMV1l7YeRbS3WotWaI2dITY7HtW7ZIOm6zAQ/zZ4=; b=PGbdSs6a+nPcOlKO9XVR1qQUPAhz6xb6Xz95yrerPP7KZyjeGwnd+3zp5X9OMaAFfT NC2kCx4iFMNwNAZm7+ZnZHuA9x8RHBWwWjDzP4aYDJylcx4gfzYb9G0zdjgh/z64w7cY //7cgLntTNazrd4XeKhmaQSnueJNrTmhyY5M2POLsu/d62w49OHgAoARrTZMTrmFGCOy Vlq6YLYG5+kG+U3JTh6YQOyBzaAPnoZIBMi680kh5Sfr3OYfCEbIaj7WKhBmNPY2stAM W9Y3kGVQsl6R3si8ge6iVTAIhQ68/STFlIWpUt09VGpWviVUVoZkXbFSRgVCUK3ESav5 UuYQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fvVlMV1l7YeRbS3WotWaI2dITY7HtW7ZIOm6zAQ/zZ4=; b=HhQX3gnppiK5ntcfiQn84STTS6rDd3ifFifkCJfYynQKi9Hl2Q6UKltqXKvqEeuFCv eVhkFiWxDW6FsoZqIB2T1BXJE8L5Otn2ZLGIHgWyQ1OuQrLRj565zNEk8Q3ggTkqftyx 8ZUc/ShJlLuHkGDxI17DJ7Bgh8JMwSSoXhbIaKDQrdGVmAZsZ6YU/qEWEfGHdumTgS+M jKOH7GQVfr6QO3ohKHGLApuT7v05y5o3fMSxWWB4hQ0FS85+1jTBeAZnWhOfb9TRrFeB Xd245F00B0xxbucZhuDyUM1h/3tEVk4QRyrKE4cFyObeDf+JfjW5ya0N8qvMGPNTf74n RF4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV4mN/e92sg9k/aQUGdlEyrERvT0lHSOpweGLe3cUdzRfIn6OrJNiyr+ibECZKxIQ==
X-Received: by 10.98.67.93 with SMTP id q90mr11213469pfa.100.1463870728522; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4c59:1:64c5:f48:b5f6:2567? ([2406:e007:4c59:1:64c5:f48:b5f6:2567]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i75sm36272862pfj.51.2016.05.21.15.45.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 21 May 2016 15:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es> <5740A90E.2030200@gmail.com> <34CC7DDE-3341-4BF8-8238-B32176EDC72A@consulintel.es> <55BAE36899C13FA1D0565FAF@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <2ceffd31-c78f-f6f7-116e-85498b4413f1@gmail.com> <2768F29AB5526E6C2A19CE3D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <4C4EC346-A749-4F75-957F-9E4DE31A7771@consulintel.es> <CAPt1N1m3ZCmvfYPxkKB7fg8TtSWqg1A0FikknFJ8+DqhJpjxPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <91d20fcb-1222-2317-b254-1f9b181473ab@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 10:45:24 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1m3ZCmvfYPxkKB7fg8TtSWqg1A0FikknFJ8+DqhJpjxPw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XYbkEcU98scvEy94i-D7zDlf1wM>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sat, 21 May 2016 22:45:32 -0000

On 22/05/2016 10:30, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 6:12 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
> jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
> 
>> I don’t agree it makes a difference if it is a stare-rule of and
>> environmental thing, also because as we need to contract the venue 2-3
>> years in advance, both situations can change in that period of time.
>>
> 
> +1
> 
> That is not a distinction we make now: at present, there are locations we
> avoid at least in part because they are not as safe as the locations to
> which we presently go.   I think it would be highly reasonable, and I would
> support, a policy that the IETF does not go to any venue where concealed or
> open carry is legal, or where controls on the purchase of weapons were not
> adequately controlled.
> 
> I say this based on the fact that the thing I worry about most in terms of
> random mayhem _is_ in fact that there will be some kind of random gun
> violence while I or Andrea are out and about.   This has become a matter of
> increasing concern over time.   It is a different topic than the Singapore
> topic, but let us not pretend that there are not IETFers who have this as a
> serious concern.

Yes, I agree that there is a distinction between "The state does not protect
me from a clear danger" and "The state might arrest one of my friends." My point
was really that they should both go in the balance.

    Brian