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

Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> Wed, 25 May 2016 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <bensons@queuefull.net>
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 AD02312D5CE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=queuefull.net
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 IfCXJT9mGnTT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x236.google.com (mail-it0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::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 050D012DCD8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x236.google.com with SMTP id e62so83906668ita.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=queuefull.net; s=google; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pAunQR/IyBWR7fB6otsU/9gAA92Njqe6bErFFiH+uLk=; b=JeZiaxdoPjYWLjMxH+WwgvgRFcd2GfH8qrT0Azw3NAVW/Z0g9//779b6c2+tgXfV2m MgaeD8VXjuxDIbQ63x8E565ReHT2H4FaTWN0UpuxTVQsEuFzC4S4wCFuoGTrNE6M08Uz kaB2/wZR+B6RNC6MhCD8hYBdA8tO2pT8DTIxg=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pAunQR/IyBWR7fB6otsU/9gAA92Njqe6bErFFiH+uLk=; b=N0osgciB3MowmYGIythqA0q0tcW4nqXioEPMCxdTfbXR0VjafQ9efvG1MOp/m/kmaE qItffClW54XsHEMT9tZzfYzdEvjx6xIarHCUutc+7CKyM5cPSmFJ1f1XFbp0Rte4t3F6 no+F7zJCCX9azPLCFlkns8BVCzaYQL2/Eu6h6+3y+mFECMLG4TcftjImTle3S3+uRA3A UmYPT3KwrsHMpwbuBh4z/GUXspqdUHo+QiUID+wIXpis5HcoZgQy3bYFfn3aJ1SREWIt C56zFnQNO4IANkMCyn469RP6I5gOpc73DJmMZCV8/u6haVjncq0dQUIngwKRrh7lO3rW G/Zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLCnLD4T3rfJ35f9njStEWhFGBv4zIo8wfrgIfKiwnBhe52BYnS34CXcLw6TyqMAA==
X-Received: by 10.13.221.142 with SMTP id g136mr4048982ywe.238.1464220368109; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from desolation-5.local (68-115-154-254.static.hckr.nc.charter.com. [68.115.154.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i187sm809705ywb.51.2016.05.25.16.52.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 May 2016 16:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <57463ACD.7090900@queuefull.net>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:52:45 -0400
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+9kkMDaTmkV9Q_tOH8od_xm7uXntJ5fzp9uyAnuPt=cTFQGXA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDaTmkV9Q_tOH8od_xm7uXntJ5fzp9uyAnuPt=cTFQGXA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jhCkiUOLFwIPDpdjoqKhnZ9tCC4>
Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, IETF <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: Wed, 25 May 2016 23:52:57 -0000

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
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg98101.html).  In
> Leslie's mail of the 23rd
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg98176.html), 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