Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Wed, 25 May 2016 04:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 5CC1D12D603 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 21:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.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 8erFDha__CEz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 21:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22f.google.com (mail-qk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (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 F080B12D602 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 21:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id x7so26609404qkd.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 21:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=xvGmS41D33MpQGxpJN/j5NYDE5K1FqySaWS3Q1XhtDo=; b=xvpCxL7njqEfVANY70sj6dxlWO5Dw7R53C+EvEGm5aasDRfVCPcC1hw7oNrg2bYrgu x1B1YtkvQqQ1xNf/nPk09n+Fk7BBe14BJ8E+enjt5MciopQk9M6QPrclTwhnCFBrryFS DaKoSRXjh2Il4ICDzlZvxXlZYN6L/mRBGGNRDDv/wpq8ZP6tDolBLuNANdji+mU1T4TQ T8N6TzTJvfBtWQ4HjLg56FljQzY2WkAQIwSuRKsduyKAiG54bfQQI3LG2fJ+os012lPn Lw1MQ1L7OPkw9Q/233pSrLxfyBLgF2TCLBCqPzFO49J/5ByqE6BKnUGwYBdsCMpsi1u/ A3lA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=xvGmS41D33MpQGxpJN/j5NYDE5K1FqySaWS3Q1XhtDo=; b=D1Q0SjjN4XPTnknUnxQTg40suTtV3SjQjvMd5n/F4RrQIjWhLngu4cYT+tUJlrMBOh aKJXnZAKEH8zPOPHBjQ1n9WR4wJgnjWMuRdFcAUVM2IOoS6274T3+wRCDx4p0v1zi7L4 m8NBjLRKyDzIH022stDFDcPi7MVmoVbTfyEf274bzk7uJ+piIhKMCXx/lEJdYiYezr5K TrIlH/Cy3XsdRNbHOBwd5KolxMvOba4q53k5lrrOUMDQYmhZLF++WhjEl+Zg2IlcOcvQ B8mQjWeEo5F4qLQ6cPXtxXfb2evXuyT6wZBFbbObHwQ8jLdMVn27HoyLpYKA/2Nc8J05 fz3Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tI44WvnZg8Gu3sxVdlEpyEULIL14SpBszW9gjSFE1dAKgH+rmnw+Dr+hyjFXcAZVHh15ZEYaJOMeEVACA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.217.152 with SMTP id q24mr1557642qkl.179.1464150317057; Tue, 24 May 2016 21:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.55.190.197 with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2016 21:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:a174:e5fe:99cb:1b8]
In-Reply-To: <A220A4C6-4E68-4F66-8DF3-B16A252076C1@nostrum.com>
References: <58598992-449C-4E2B-867D-12D04236AB3A@thinkingcat.com> <D7078B9A-AF4B-4D40-A8D7-CD7C42DE3218@cooperw.in> <D95B9AE8-5B5A-4882-A371-3C5825179FC8@thinkingcat.com> <cbbc3530-fe39-a9f3-084a-0458c9961f5b@nostrum.com> <A220A4C6-4E68-4F66-8DF3-B16A252076C1@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:25:16 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn0QcOuwR_2KvPYtPRtJBU94vRbLhpT=f3G8DnvtbKkH9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bMcr6q0YhhzzbN02eMzyOi57324>
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 04:25:21 -0000

Given the constraint set, can the IAOC post a list of economies
worldwide, that given its current understanding of their social equity
issues, are not likely to be a problem?

I'm not at this stage concerned about the other constraints like
technology, access to airports, hotel size. Just, the new(er)
constraints regarding this specific problem: If we do now have a
ring-fence, I think we need to understand how big the remaining
economy-pool is.

I ask the question this way round, because I suspect its a smaller set
than the other one. If thats not true, then the anti-set is fine.

It would help, if we can also see a mark/count of which of them have
been visited how often in the past.

If its easier, the entire worldwide economy list with a mark for 'not
acceptable on this constraint' and a count of attendance would do it.

cheers

-George

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> On 24 May 2016, at 9:19, Adam Roach wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/16 08:20, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>>>
>>> an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is actually an IETF meeting NOW
>>> for planning purposes.
>>
>>
>>
>> What I'm hearing (here and elsewhere in the thread) is that we have a
>> long-term policy issue that we should address with considerable deliberation
>> and at a pace that respects the gravity of the issue; and that we have an
>> extremely short term "go or no-go" decision that needs to be made now, right
>> now, immediately regarding IETF 100.
>>
>> While there have been a variety of positions put forth on the topic, I
>> think there's good evidence in this conversation that the final, long-term
>> policy that we'll form on this topic would probably, if complete and in
>> place today, rule out Singapore as a potential destination. It's not a
>> foregone conclusion, and I'm not trying to claim anything like consensus.
>> I'm just pointing out that it's a real possibility.
>>
>> From that perspective, it seems that the snap judgement that needs to be
>> made right now can only safely be made by revectoring to a different
>> location. If the situation is as urgent as you portray it to be, it sounds
>> like there's not time for the more protracted course of action you propose,
>> unless going to Singapore is a foregone conclusion and this is merely an
>> exercise in justification.
>>
>
> I mostly agree with Adam.
>
> I agree that we need to separate the two issues. And by that, I mean
> separate them broadly.
>
> I absolutely agree we need to fix the policy, and that such a fix would
> involve a long-term discussion. It will take time to get things right. But I
> think we also need to take a step back from the IETF100 issue when we have
> the policy discussion. While the IETF100 discussion will be instructive, it
> seems to me that we are in crisis mode. History shows us that crises rarely
> result in good policy.
>
> So let's deal with IETF100 now, with what we do (or will hopefully soon)
> know. I think the fact the crisis is happening suggests in the abstract that
> we should revector this one meeting without worrying too much about setting
> precedents. That may or may not still make sense in the face of more
> concrete information about our options.
>
> Ben.
>