Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Ted Hardie <> Thu, 26 May 2016 00:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4984612D88E; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:03:47 -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 AceKfJK0WQ-1; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2637112D5C9; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u5so1135596igk.1; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:03:45 -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=OerrbvjdZyZoqjwgiDtrJezNYBpJZl6GpA16agHu6zc=; b=COLuM10TGFo5UxOspwuXlV6M8Pkft5ochiYWf0vxrcvjQVyHAboFjlvxZCr4JvcrDa UtznqYvh7EjxakOM/9SomKiDfCS6bJcG5sB1UcyDjw9KAKs5LU9ImWmbo9ft5dGu6nMA 1t97re5rV342g660Kr7EPdzw61x5JYgCTj4YU3DXC23UEUqm/rcPumBsr4ZfDzcCUVXu CqQ0k8hQmzpy1u5VuRYTPgOr9je6JgIGVpQtRmiIKG+VsM6qTKsN8rPkEFbTNqTYungL /gYWqXWXSXC2a1Lpu2EuG7trM4jf60Jt+yM706HAgmNl5fZJmcaJvL0wpF5lyF/dU76K 5T4A==
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=OerrbvjdZyZoqjwgiDtrJezNYBpJZl6GpA16agHu6zc=; b=B3DsrvD0xs4UzLHiBZ8TqSTeAN9hmvyGjHdK+30Gq31uT68k6cNYCKDNtb0vGMTnPv K75Td1ajriyosL2P99g6R73yLxS5KygkcY2uXD/M7jEMC+52QWG3ITA+rOx/4QYiIPB+ 9LOHoDqkU5riJaDC4alpOvvZhLrkMpwaz5ikApga6iAaMY8H50JjLNE4fS216DgDuNVT n+SMxGIwd9hoZmSuU652HyPxT3Mwxuf6BrffZgzyNXxXDdDATXVxhQcR8FAYzlnWc3X+ 5iMh2hRONeB3+RaE4cDnWwi3rIdklbBR3VmdPoSBVCVFoMDaq4zAiof06RqDaOYF/jC9 8dWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKgypJxPuWTlJ76KK70A7l1j9uHs4+f67wbLqwFOAcZ6uysGlngmjAo+va3RDXyW5pvZ2yeAmSpJNuvjA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id l63mr4344931otc.48.1464221024462; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:03:25 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Benson Schliesser <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1149299c092bfc0533b3866d
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, IETF <>
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 00:03:47 -0000

Hi Benson,

The question I asked the IAOC was  if their "assessment was of only the
working meetings or if it included assessing the usual accommodations for
families and partners  (or even included an assessment of whether it was
suitable for a gala occasion, given the 100th). "

You note:  "The IAOC's Meetings Committee (with the IAD and AMS, et al)
have inquired and gotten feedback from a number of sources about whether
Singapore was appropriate for IETF 100."  When they solicited that
feedback, was it for the working meetings, the usual accommodations for
families and partners, or something else?


Ted Hardie

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Benson Schliesser <>

> Hi, Ted.
> Ted Hardie wrote:
> > After the first message on from the IAOC related to this announcement, I
> > asked a clarifying question of the IAOC on their understanding of what
> > "Singapore can function as a meeting location for IETF100" entailed (see
> >  In
> > Leslie's mail of the 23rd
> > (, there
> > was an acknowledgement that the IAOC had not yet responded to this
> request.
> >
> > If this message is meant to contain that response, I do not find it.  I
> > would like to know if the IAOC has an answer or, if not, when it expects
> > to provide one.
> First: I am explicitly /not/ speaking on behalf of the IAOC right now,
> but I am responding as one IAOC member that is somewhat familiar with
> the investigation into Singapore. I'm probably speaking a bit "out of
> turn" here, but I think it's better to be more transparent and answer
> your question to the extent that I'm able.
> That being said, I do think the IAOC would have liked to say more about
> this (very reasonable, IMHO) question. And I think that we may still do
> so in the near future. But we were not prepared to (officially) do so
> today.
> Nevertheless, the IAOC felt that it would be better to provide partial
> information quickly, about the finances etc. - rather than wait until we
> had a perfectly complete message - and from this emerged the message
> that you saw recently from Leslie.
> Without enumerating the details at this time (most of which I don't know
> firsthand), I think it's reasonable to let you know that: The IAOC's
> Meetings Committee (with the IAD and AMS, et al) have inquired and
> gotten feedback from a number of sources about whether Singapore was
> appropriate for IETF 100. These sources included (but were not limited
> to) travel professionals employed at agencies that specialize in travel
> for clients in the LGBTQI communities, clients of various religious and
> ethnic backgrounds, etc.
> The investigation was meant to be aligned with the sort of process that
> is being documented in draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process.
> The summary of their findings, as reported to the IAOC, was consistent
> with the message that "Singapore can function as a meeting location for
> IETF100". Given the short timeframe to make a decision for IETF 100 it
> didn't seem useful to postpone the opportunity for community feedback on
> that conclusion while we investigated further, second-guessed the
> process, etc.
> I'm sorry that I don't have a complete set of details, and that this is
> an imperfect answer. But I hope this helps.
> Cheers,
> -Benson