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

S Moonesamy <> Mon, 23 May 2016 22:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157A612B008; Mon, 23 May 2016 15:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.426
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=29lZ/oLJ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=PISNGvB7
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KfcoWmWyAIMD; Mon, 23 May 2016 15:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4DA12DA5D; Mon, 23 May 2016 15:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4NMc5ud023702 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 May 2016 15:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1464043096; x=1464129496; bh=WnM3rPEuTsFy96XqI1/zwW1waukw/gzCFHueW/LbHhA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=29lZ/oLJ9xkE0gkqxtgeNc/+e7NXsUCr4Fh64hC1X3FC4VhcYkRCEzC/mLJF0a8pv p+49s1Ra31FJMW1GWLD9XnTiZie8FSfjt2+cE/RahL2z/DYGnMxiKWbuzIeWRndYWT l+OF7wZ4PniRfzLGsoNzGk3ftPB0VG4jtwoUdnM0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1464043096; x=1464129496;; bh=WnM3rPEuTsFy96XqI1/zwW1waukw/gzCFHueW/LbHhA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=PISNGvB7vx3EIsGAxe7PCh7Bvjvmt2TPgwatKkoUCYaob4OOymWTysFjbo1mbvAJD NWuFqO2xiSTHBjvB5phY5Quq0oZitlS1Z54nkMKZ3reH4rZ73a2L+u2oGBFwUecJfG WnDM8j1xiMgVN+eX0dYBUcopUqlFqUA1TvimFhYg=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:34:34 -0700
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Mon, 23 May 2016 22:38:21 -0000

Hi Leslie,
At 11:14 17-05-2016, IAOC Chair wrote:
>Having reviewed the Singapore proposal in the 
>light of the plenary input, we have a proposal 
>for moving forward and would like community input — see below.
>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.

The only information which can be verified in the 
above is the information published on


   "Dealing with IETF 100 is the first order of business. The IAOC is gathering
    information about the situation ­ including the full cost of canceling
    existing contracts, so that the IETF community can have a fuller picture
    from which to provide guidance for our next steps."

The IAOC did not provide any other facts to subscribers.  It is not possible to get a fuller picture.

In 2010, there was "a proposed experiment for a 
Meeting Companion Program at the upcoming Prague 
IETF".  The reason [1] given was that: "many IETF 
members are accompanied to IETF meetings. The 
lives of the IETF companions would be enhanced if 
they had a way to meet and communicate with each 
other. The lives of IETF members might also be 
enhanced. The Meetings committee is favorably 
inclined to support this experiment".  The issue 
raised by Ted Hardie [2] is related to the Meeting Companion Program.

S. Moonesamy