RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Thu, 26 May 2016 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
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 3B8E812D5DB; Thu, 26 May 2016 00:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.346
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 MY1YEfUJFfL8; Thu, 26 May 2016 00:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED53F12D0A8; Thu, 26 May 2016 00:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u4Q7SV3W030329; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:28:31 +0200
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: <ietf@ietf.org>, "'IETF Announcement List'" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Subject: RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 09:28:38 +0200
Message-ID: <003701d1b720$38acf2f0$aa06d8d0$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQGKWTXgMpErZ7+wK+zkYpLW5edIVaBZi3pA
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ej70DavxY4MP7GD476l9PxgEOXU>
Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 07:28:40 -0000

Another thing to put in the pros and cons: this would set a precedent for future meetings.

This map reflects the current situation worldwide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage#/media/File:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg

BR,

Jose

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Recentattendees [mailto:recentattendees-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de
> IAOC Chair
> Enviado el: jueves, 26 de mayo de 2016 0:08
> Para: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>;
> CC: recentattendees@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Asunto: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
> 
> All,
> 
> In the IAOC's previous message on this topic we stated that the IAOC believed that
> it is possible to hold a successful meeting in Singapore, and that meeting in
> Singapore is the best option for IETF 100.  This statement was based on several
> factors, including evaluation of the site based on the requirements and process now
> being updated and tracked in draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-
> 02.  In particular, this included consulting with the additional information sources
> identified in the document (specialty travel services, etc), and no specific issues
> were identified as to actual situation in Singapore.  More detail on the information we
> have to hand is provided below.
> 
> Additional arguments have come forward since our earlier messages,  which leads
> us to continue exploring.  The IETF Chair has been in touch with the meeting host,
> which is obviously another factor in whether we can/should move.   But we need to
> make a decision, so this message contains such information as we have at present.
> We understand that it is difficult to express a view about what to do in the absence
> of known alternatives; but we do not know what the alternatives are now, and we
> need urgently to make a decision, so we are sharing the incomplete information we
> have in the interests of transparency.
> 
> 
> Laying this out in a pro/con format:
> 
> 
> Not Singapore:
> --------------
> 
> If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward positive
> impacts include:
> 
> 	. We might have the opportunity to establish the meeting in a venue that
> permits more IETF participants to be comfortable being present and engaging in a
> celebration of this milestone meeting, which is important to some.
> 
> 
> 
> If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward negative
> impacts include:
> 
> 	. Losing approximately $80,000 (USD) hotel agreement cancellation fee[1]
> 
> 	. Losing up to approximately $150,000 (USD) in Singapore government
> incentives [2]
> 
> 	. Re-prioritizing people time to find a new location (the IAD, Secretariat staff)
> who have full plates for lining up other future meetings; there’s an unknown amount
> of impact in terms of how that impacts *other* meetings (N.B.:  some of this effort is
> already underway to obtain the information on possible alternatives and outline the
> pros/cons outlined here).
> 
> 	. Likelihood of IETF 100 in Asia is very small — we have few prospects and
> it takes us months to get all the pieces aligned to get to a signed contract in Asia
> (Singapore took over a year).  This would create additional challenges for our Asian
> community members (travel distance, visas).
> 
> 	. Possible shift of dates — to be able to find a venue elsewhere that works
> 
> We have some wiggle room in the point about time to find a new venue insofar as it
> would be easiest to use a North American site that we have used before.   If we
> have to consider non-North American, and/or new venues where a site visit is
> needed, effort and cost will be higher.
> 
> Note, we should only cancel the Singapore contract once we know that an
> alternative venue, that is acceptable to community, is ready to put under contract.
> The cost of cancellation ($80k now) goes up to $192k if we don’t cancel before
> November 2016 (i.e., a few months from now).
> 
> 
> We do have to give the hotel a reason for canceling our contract:
> 
> Reasons for Cancellation of IETF 100 Meeting in Singapore, and the IAOC
> understands that to be:
> 
> “    Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men and
>     preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create
>     difficulties for same-sex partners and their children; these have
>     discouraged affected members of our community from participating
>     at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced
>     others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them.
> 
> 
>     Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the meeting
>     in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.”
> 
> 
> 
> If we stick with Singapore for IETF 100:
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward positive
> impacts include:
> 
> 	. we have a functional meeting venue set for our 3rd meeting of 2017
> 
> 	. meeting site research resources can remain focused on filling in the
> remaining gaps in the 3-4 year timeframe
> 
> 	. we don’t have the financial hit of the cancellation fee, and possible loss of
> government incentives
> 
> If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward negative
> impacts include:
> 
> 	. we have a meeting at a location where some community members will
> perceive themselves as unwelcome and unsafe, unable to bring family
> 
> 	. possibly fewer attendees than we might otherwise expect — which is a
> consideration for both getting work done and financial reasons (registration fees per
> person)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is the practical information as we can best scope it.
> 
> 
> If you would like to provide some considered feedback on this matter, please feel
> free to send it to venue-selection@ietf.org .  Please note that mailing list is a
> PUBLICLY archived “drop box” [3].
> 
> 
> Leslie Daigle, for the IAOC.
> 
> 
> [1] The cancellation fee can be recovered if it is used as a deposit at a later meeting
> with those hotels in Singapore, if it is before 2020; for this discussion, it’s perhaps
> best to consider it gone.
> 
> [2] Government business incentives are not unusual; we might obtain these in
> another country hosting IETF 100, but we are late to be expecting incentives and
> opportunities for good deals, and are unlikely to get this in a North America venue.
> 
> [3] The venue-selection mailing list is not open for subscription, and it is not intended
> to archive dynamic conversations (i.e., don’t cc it on an e-mail discussion thread,
> because there will be too many addressees and your mail won’t go through).
> 
> --
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Recentattendees mailing list
> Recentattendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees