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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 21 May 2016 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C839712B065 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s9DdDVGVcsko for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F165A12B061 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b66so31441140pfb.2 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 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 with ESMTPSA id i75sm36272862pfj.51.2016. (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 <>, Jordi Palet Martinez <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
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: 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 <
>> 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.