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

"Peterson, Jon" <> Sat, 21 May 2016 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B3312B076 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wXKVTrJDwMaM for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7F5B128B44 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id u4LLXA5V015872 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 17:38:32 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id 232jatu61y-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 17:38:32 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0279.002; Sat, 21 May 2016 17:38:31 -0400
From: "Peterson, Jon" <>
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
Thread-Index: AQHRs6kdf19IPbKzWU6x0/t4EZ7rVg==
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:38:30 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D3662363190A96jonpetersonneustarbiz_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-05-21_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1604210000 definitions=main-1605210281
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: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:38:34 -0000

On 5/21/16 1:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I agree, but I also agree with Jordi. The main reason for having
> a diversity policy is ethical and moral, but there's also a 'business'
> reason - making use of everybody's talents to the maximum - and that
> surely is the fundamental reason for the whole site selection policy
> anyway. It certainly isn't providing tourist and vacation opportunities
> for family members. So...

There's a reason this discussion has come up around IETF 100, though. While I'm sure IETF participants would be tempted to view this as just another meeting, there's a sense in which it has to be more than that. A lot of us have spent much of our careers working in this organization, and developing professional and personal relationships here. IETF 100 will be a work meeting and not a vacation opportunity, but I think attached to that work meeting should also be a celebration, and one where the personal relationships may matter more than usual.

When I hear that long-time participants, people that have been around longer than me, feel like they need to sit this one out because of where it is happening, or worry about bringing their families to a meeting where we expect that these enduring relationships will be celebrated, that makes me think we as a community need to arrive at a consensus about whether or not this is okay, and if not, what we should do about it.

We do need to set better general policies for venue selection, and it sounds like the IAOC is starting to look into that. But I think there's a further question about this specific meeting location that we should resolve with some urgency.

Jon Peterson

Neustar, Inc.