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

Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <margaretw42@gmail.com>
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 27E6E12D8DB; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 PPkBE88ZxYDk; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x236.google.com (mail-yw0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8365012B069; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x236.google.com with SMTP id o16so87539425ywd.2; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=w/HhRLBK7QYFpSVfpAR7Rc3aETEgUlcmQ3n+d8+yTxQ=; b=RAyUUzWumGFtTdv/wyEVW9FZKbE7FGrqOwCzemWNcMm2MISvS+GgBjgI/RRPN0svXX Y8kpsuDLDpvDNKpSdr2s212BY9c+GToV1UR6woKhHym2wtiDlVeOOw6lmHg99abJhGIP O/JLE8FB9qg/3OqzZ3lSMDSqeF932iA9ajwypFv/ZKWpS6oI6AXt81kp3KpgCRz/2PDi q47YPWB93W+nDCEAasi1AodC2ssEenMy3lt3U++P8a5Ef+ZfP4lkpV4zNkN2rFDavnRs Mo2AJ1NAWaZwqwAC3PiLZ9O7iFs2miN7Cn4a8r31pI1/1Hpc4iHGjT2Fu2wIGiTRa2hH 7qFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=w/HhRLBK7QYFpSVfpAR7Rc3aETEgUlcmQ3n+d8+yTxQ=; b=imigIDqzfQKJt1nOX2uIsT1PWv8WS4r80oZ+rMHxsSlLyR+TX36ARk6lD91vZOpqia AbV/CkSFLxdMkZPuZnT2vrx4axla5x3wtphOBFf1RQmta/dDbL3oH8JBQIYhHzq0HZ50 tJMY9zUDtlHk3dfDuIWB01cyJt2qlrMurezFH/5lYzd0kctRLTO9meOr0MmAQc1M+b6d 6z/wIautg036MJ5JUje6N8cK23K+JzzwJmqoER5vD7/pmTIQOmy1XdO0385SZvClC2NY +64I+QTTo32T5EyzBld9QqBvN0BHFEPpcGO9kIoo2+GGYTNCs0LEXo6PkXODS8WfjTJ7 JbKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJdjp6f2D2iQkxj2vFIv7XgEAIciTLyPGtlCGYgqwyloJpjHuaxlbkVCJ9LOKiMbA==
X-Received: by 10.37.52.75 with SMTP id b72mr6512104yba.118.1464294121720; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from margarets-air-3.home (pool-72-74-19-153.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [72.74.19.153]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y131sm3372376ywg.18.2016.05.26.13.22.00 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 26 May 2016 13:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Margaret Cullen <mrcullen42@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E449AFCA-A49D-42FE-A8FF-973CA61F302E@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:21:59 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6771A81D-EBE9-4A88-B7BA-E1CE9778C1BF@gmail.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <E449AFCA-A49D-42FE-A8FF-973CA61F302E@network-heretics.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hMdsP3BCSJ_r3kjXEp7_3CLvl_4>
Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, "Fred Baker \(fred\)" <fred@cisco.com>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <ietf@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 20:22:05 -0000

> On May 26, 2016, at 4:01 PM, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
> 
> Right, but should IETF need to hire lawyers in each country in order to get an expert opinion about whether members of each of an enumerated set of groups can legally be harassed when attending a meeting there, and about the likelihood of that happening?

What about the IAOC writing to the IETF list and/or recent attendees when they are considering going to a new country, asking if anyone has any feedback on the idea?  And then considering that feedback _before_ making a final decision, signing a contract, etc?

It seems to me that if this issue had been raised before the IAOC had made a non-refundable $80K deposit and had negotiated $150K in benefits from the Singapore government, there would have been a lot more latitude for choosing a different location.

Margaret