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

Adam Roach <> Tue, 17 May 2016 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1FB12D918; Tue, 17 May 2016 12:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CFiEjyvfhy2a; Tue, 17 May 2016 12:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C47612D9B1; Tue, 17 May 2016 12:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4HJJG2M021423 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 May 2016 14:19:17 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be Orochi.local
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <>
To:, IETF list <>
From: Adam Roach <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 14:19:16 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:19:20 -0000

On 5/17/16 13:14, IAOC Chair wrote:
> The IAOC meetings committee reviewed the options for IETF 100, including investigating costs and possibilities of moving the meeting to a different location.  In keeping with the updated process outlined below, they checked with official advisory sources and consulted with specialty travel services, frequent travelers, and local representatives about the concerns that have been raised.  The input received from those sources is consistent with the text on [1].
>  From that research, at a strictly practical level, the IAOC believes that it is possible to have a successful meeting in Singapore.  The IAOC proposes that holding the meeting in Singapore is the best option for IETF 100 at this time.
> Next Step:
> The IAOC would like to hear from the community by June 1st, 2016 on barriers to holding a successful meeting in Singapore. Responses should be directed to

I have a hard time making a valid evaluation of this topic. I suspect 
many people who will weigh in over the next few weeks are in a similar 
situation, even if they don't realize it. I include the IAOC in this 

It is very difficult to interpret the effect of potentially oppressive 
environments on the potentially oppressed if you are not a member of 
that group. It would be presumptuous for a majority straight population 
to make this decision on behalf of those people actually impacted.

So I'm going to withhold expressing support for or opposition to the 
proposed course of action until we hear from GLBTQ IETFers in light of 
the information the IAOC is offering as rationale for continuing to 
pursue Singapore as a venue.

But to be clear: I will almost certainly forgo attending a meeting at 
which any of my GLBTQ colleagues felt unwelcome. I would actively 
encourage others to adopt the same stance. Whether this forms a barrier 
to a successful meeting is up for debate; however, It would almost 
certainly be a setback for the working groups I chair.