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

Ted Hardie <> Mon, 23 May 2016 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14FF112D662; Mon, 23 May 2016 01:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 OtKRmh-B3ytg; Mon, 23 May 2016 01:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C058412D656; Mon, 23 May 2016 01:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j1so28860208oih.3; Mon, 23 May 2016 01:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N47SaX0TNeThcBE+Wsk2pODttwEZcXXKX3dcxJ7faeI=; b=YXu3RxRkuIiU0XBfsVuX1a9ZMZg2Tll2BVzIE+wj/JlGo4aEZp9Myb+HYUcpFY7ImR +eVU4IWB3i6Ky+ciWaGPZC7xJvz4l4MRvrRO66fsTkhqJNZh4vRv4ewFklhyyv3LiCUp 0bQfNkU9Clt0ztlWIC1t46RgPgP72p34l7b5N5z13pJcRb9FO6vWvsxw12WLaG3KG4UJ GcU8HnoCxmUvbV56ybqVVSLlt81CdsUyrc7ZkIFz4N+5kFHD3mV0iEyw8CkKxorJAHYh gbUExBK4JVoky2egvYsjn6RaN5a7RiVXpia4IzvVr2BOdQetzcgeHUrTolgcBbTJmUgR Vp3w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N47SaX0TNeThcBE+Wsk2pODttwEZcXXKX3dcxJ7faeI=; b=Lfa0BfThdSk4hlmhwl+ashzICkhq0F6J2eNuchSa6bORz88ARgY4kvLLDubV92BDaV GbzFOtLSMeV97lwxQSB/oPqYRoVbGSLI2bMJ2dzbSh9seGeFVpFNVxQoOQMgDcN2kMq3 k3dTYI16UZvU/TP0U1MwzVNZhsqCN6ZBqqu7Njfl4zLMMNPAw5qxPUqyQHzENjgJrmkK hmzx3pFDtEuS13AnbHi4aEFz5BOYWVzYyY7BH1ElXOhvXQqgiJj9DwHxdsZ5lJOV4U30 rWGMgbRM8zU8r4Eecg9u0e7tpMLGfjJO/c8wMKHWq6xuWcnIXVcsvD4eQwXW5YnJIREH NStw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXQBrQ8yIWES2mjEckmY9t84SDDw7dgnSp4WVy0/FIE5wXMz/kPR2ICCdijURizWo2sIFRvpIBONGUZpw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id f18mr8353932oib.53.1463992329977; Mon, 23 May 2016 01:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 01:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 04:31:50 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Eliot Lear <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113b19cac8458305337e466a"
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, IETF list <>
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 08:32:12 -0000

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Eliot Lear <> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
> Put more bluntly: there will *always* be some group who is at least
> inconvenienced and at most prohibited from attending a meeting.

A commitment to inclusiveness is something that takes work.  If you give up
on it *ab initio *as impossible, it is not a principle, it is window
dressing.  I don't think Fred meant it that way, and I certainly don't.  As
Stephen has pointed out, the Internet we've helped build may be better at
inclusion than any country we could visit.  That should make us proud, but
it cannot also mean we give up on this for or physical meetings while we
have them.


> I will tell you that religion has been a problem in the past where
> participants have been unable to eat according to their custom.  For those
> who are devout followers of a faith we have not made every accommodation.
> We probably cannot.

I believe this is another case where participation, rather than entry, is
the right criterion to put into a document.  If someone with a religious
dietary practice that requires inspected food cannot have access to that
food for the duration of a meeting, they are effectively barred from
participation even if they are permitted entry.

I had not been aware that this was the case for any of our meetings, but I
agree that it should be a consideration and I hope that it is one where
accommodation can be created.  In the case of a state which prevented the
use of such inspections, I would expect it to be "militated against", in
Fred's terms.

Thanks again for your thought on this,