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

Eric Rescorla <> Sat, 21 May 2016 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDEF12B011 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 10:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VwG4_7ioOYID for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 10:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C3161200A0 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 10:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x194so136624065ywd.0 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 10:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EBOM5viSGI4T5Ya0fbBrBJrl6HmgHNHOwpLDBTONwWM=; b=ix9n4kBzSZByoifsHV7FbevP3+Poi/bOPNlsDqIPGVyOfQMtkeo2sY57K3t/ZtJMsL wOT/RpnsRmt38E+LLxkLHzuDE9GX6GRp0MtWwgaCHQzmnc8wIw2H4vEc7JtDhN+OM2M7 NfX3LHBVv5zkdf2EiNfnesQJWIW8D6Qlp63SMNOCqpSKZRRGOf3zrMzhIDoB8r1qPUKF 7G8GzZ7JnPTOBUt4ePJHUNv8DwqhvfeCb7dMuTpKjy8RceggcXMdBWW9G9rr8Lc2wA5Z xXu5nVNIfmF6sbx5eja2o7X0PdKqfDFdBwqAsRCf8l9xJZ9dEHdUKs0/3rel/olpMj5S DrTQ==
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=EBOM5viSGI4T5Ya0fbBrBJrl6HmgHNHOwpLDBTONwWM=; b=KYS6DYs0fgy9CVEAuovbgaVrHNf9uVV3EyjevQSfw72CUbJ0TWkpDspllL5fnoJdym pCd/qdExrivIpbHd21sguEP7m5wYITa8lGGUh/I5Nh8MShLXAR/aPtPWtUNJK951wKhI kYL+hZAUWMqpBU/L4pgSdQTsKepmy/Pd4t1jVF7cmU6USeqZYO+Hq0AtFBNqtjCQ6hcC LLvIYu5ybkG0SDz4Dor9HBAsSpmv2oL70eStIDRmJmEOMKMiT4vNfKnLwOIThpkuFBgy iZolJGOLcHvptWkHuzA7GzA2d6yeyNs8J5x6uF5YSg/wLlTpH5jFqgJ6kazKQD9EddhZ x1rA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXZznmIFmkS1MtN0JGEDJeHSXlopo2OWepOrV0wxX6Kqeh8PcH2lXDBsJWbXXphsOIAmNvisJ+FCcgBPQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s1mr5202283ywe.286.1463850394758; Sat, 21 May 2016 10:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 21 May 2016 10:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 10:05:55 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Ted Hardie <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07cfb4c8ede705335d3a42"
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: Sat, 21 May 2016 17:06:38 -0000

This seems like a reasonable assessment.

Citing Fred's document again, such travel barriers to entry must be
"researched, noted, and carefully considered." While (as the document
makes clear) "there are no perfect venues", I think the balance of the
evidence suggests that Singapore does not meet this important
criterion, and absent some very compelling reason why we must meet in
Singapore, should not be selected for future meetings.

With regard to the question of this meeting, it seems to me that the
relevant standard should not be whether "it it is possible to have a
successful meeting in Singapore" but rather whether, whether at
this time it is prohibitive to move to a location that better
meets our inclusiveness criteria. I am not able to assess this
question, but I believe that the IAOC should do so before reaching
a final decision to proceed with meeting in this location.


On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Ted Hardie <> wrote:

> Howdy,
>     After a discussion with Jari and Alissa about the upcoming meeting in
> Singapore, I realized that something Adam said actually suggests that we
> need to recast this discussion.  In his message, Adam said:
>         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's not only hard for those who are not in the affected class, it's
> difficult for any member of that class to speak for anyone else.  That
> suggests that trying to have this discussion based on the expressions of
> individuals of their own comfort is the wrong way to have it.  There are,
> after all, too many cases in which it is not easy for the most affected to
> make their concerns known.
>     I think the other possible (and better) way to have that discussion is
> to start from a set of community agreed principles, and then to ask whether
> a particular venue meets those principles or not. The full community
> discussion of that has not yet occurred, but in the spirit of "the Internet
> runs on Internet-drafts", I'm starting from the current working text.
>     Fred's document articulates the principle this way:
>     Inclusiveness:
>>           We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation
>> of
>>           anyone who wants to be involved.  Every country has limits on
>> who
>>           it will permit within its borders.  This principle of
>>           inclusiveness militates against the selection of venues within
>>           countries that impose visa regulations and/or laws that
>>           effectively exclude people on the basis of race, religion,
>> gender,
>>           sexual orientation, or national origin, and to a lesser extent,
>>           reduces the likelihood of selecting countries that use such
>>           attributes to make entry difficult.
>     This is cast in terms of entry and exclusion, but it is actually about
> participation.  If a country's rules prevent participation by a class of
> people, that country would be "militated against", in the words of the
> draft.
>    In Singapore, there are classes of people who are effectively excluded
> (e.g. any same sex couple whose child is of age to need both parents
> present).   Whether any member of that class speaks up at the moment is not
> the issue, if we believe a family member of that class should be able to
> attend.
>    On that basis, I believe the IAOC should not keep Singapore in the set
> for future meetings; whether it can effectively shift this meeting or not,
> I leave for a discussion of the practicality of a change.
> regards,
> Ted
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Adam Roach <> wrote:
>> 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
>> characterization.
>> 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.
>> /a