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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 22E0D12D8FD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 10:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VxOYD0Y96aju for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 D644112D8EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4OH8B7d036453 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 24 May 2016 12:08:12 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <D3662363.190A96%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <CAP8yD=spam0tQdfD-ssA6y_n-cuugHtrHKwTYieSruo8SMg_VQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHkmkwtEtDk4sPv3GjkrSFqOdRV3HBA5i2_uZu3X2D4RxSF4wA@mail.gmail.com> <2e95fd51-23b8-39e7-d4ca-a9fc9d49559c@gmail.com> <CAHkmkwsf3YfFfR7jUHYnaw6dCrasMOazjbXPJRRhZS28k8HV0w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1605241405210.28372@uplift.swm.pp.se> <714DDDE2-562D-488A-AAAA-F8DE3C2CA97D@consulintel.es> <FE76F502-617E-4190-BFF5-649EC9CFECAC@consulintel.es> <CABcZeBMPAFdLwZTr7TCJC-tZ+X=CKGzQ7Jp0zqDO86PdPn6YvQ@mail.gmail.com> <8D82EA4F-1275-436C-8030-1E799F5D7F59@consulintel.es> <CABcZeBOCtk6JK_3w2_L87oyze+dfgy7fFyU7QrGmGgEtta1oZA@mail.gmail.com> <1CA535AB-CAC4-49CB-B094-AAA7FE3119FB@consulintel.es> <2b01eb8f-d319-7d20-0f84-9a774f9e0e44@nostrum.com> <C01AE269-3168-4B6A-B8D8-D97230288302@gmail.com> <8161273d-97c2-2757-5f0c-6146d0b297aa@nostrum.com> <826bf434-f943-6027-d146-ca728a7d2b40@cisco.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <00e663ad-b880-913f-5135-0a6259578c46@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:08:10 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <826bf434-f943-6027-d146-ca728a7d2b40@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jniXzytcyv52Ko-G-Nf8zNOes48>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, jordi.palet@consulintel.es
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:08:21 -0000

On 5/24/16 11:37, Eliot Lear wrote:
> On 5/24/16 6:18 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> This shouldn't be that hard to think about. Would you have a greater
>> objection to the IETF selecting (1) a locale that allows private
>> citizen ownership of guns or (2) a country that refuses to recognize
>> Israeli passports?
> False choice.
>
>

The question on the table in this sub-thread is: considering 
governmental policies that some subset of participants find 
objectionable (but which don't otherwise preclude meeting there), 
whether nondiscriminatory ones pose a greater or lesser issue for IETF 
venue selection than discriminatory ones. All I've done above is shift 
the class being targeted.

If you want to take this logic at a slower pace, start with Jordi's 
original message listing six issues, except replace "LGBT Rights" with 
"Recognition of Israeli passports"; follow it with my response pointing 
out that #5 is different than the others; and then ask Yoav's question. 
How do you respond?

/a