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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Sun, 22 May 2016 09:15 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 E270212D0CD; Sun, 22 May 2016 02:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 fnvaE-RLoJdZ; Sun, 22 May 2016 02:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6544012D09A; Sun, 22 May 2016 02:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4194; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1463908532; x=1465118132; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=fkPq57pfw7lXPOzR+/yE2fNxbOctXTcOSRGETSwyNxA=; b=J+ms4qq3NZBPpsX66nrUIvwu3SeEjJ4crL5jwzpvxVt/txspbMp0l3om zsITJuM/WCOULAWMq5oXFx6Jxmq4oskCF5Jk2D09JNvY/qifs+6jnel26 B0G5s1BH8RwkmrrWkRgbCu1JhBRx3HDnLzLMwgSDTG/UmFNuMb6s3wl/r o=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CoBAC8d0FX/xbLJq1dhDi4QoIdgXWGE?= =?us-ascii?q?QKBVhMBAQEBAQEBZSeEQwEBBCNSBBALQgICVwYNCAEBEIgbsk+DB41sAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEQ6IHQiCT4EiF4YHglkBBJg3gyuBaIkNiUGFW49MIgE/g?= =?us-ascii?q?hMlgTc6iXIBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,349,1459814400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="634743146"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 May 2016 09:15:30 +0000
Received: from [10.61.74.172] (ams3-vpn-dhcp2732.cisco.com [10.61.74.172]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4M9FUu1009362; Sun, 22 May 2016 09:15:30 GMT
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMGpKFiA78iQDFa5xaM0r0q_3LfLO_JKxaWJ9CBUTeaLg@mail.gmail.com> <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es> <CA+9kkMCQBdZOebSo9WwEd14+Bgh64Tpd+8BfF+uzbDRSV-gFxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <88c09ff2-51d0-d419-1253-ddd8e6049397@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 11:15:29 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMCQBdZOebSo9WwEd14+Bgh64Tpd+8BfF+uzbDRSV-gFxw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eChhh61XbPQ42KtnenJHcL3mtGaqtTUbQ"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lXNkjcvlPVqLNdgooMaWP3TpzxU>
Cc: venue-selection@ietf.org, IETF list <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: Sun, 22 May 2016 09:15:35 -0000

Ted,

I do not believe that the IAOC used "novelty" as one of their criteria. 
My understanding was that this was an attempt to find a venue convenient
to Asian participants as part of the normal meeting cycle that also
happened to be affordable.  Perhaps someone from the IAOC would like to
comment further.  I'd also be curious to know if the number "100" had
any particular import in this process, referring to Jon Peterson's comments.

Wikipedia indicates that quite a number of countries, including one in
which I believe you resided, do not support parental rights of same sex
couples.  If that is what this is about, there are a number countries we
have already been to that would have caused the LGBT community a problem.

We have had in a problem getting people into our meetings based on their
nationalities.  Certainly the Chinese among us must be having a good
chuckle about this conversation, especially those that were turned down
for their visas by one country or another.  Some of these issues are
simply unavoidable.  Consider the person who is in the process of a visa
renewal in the U.S.  In other cases, the situation is far more
complicated.  Case and point: the last time I went to Russia it required
an exhaustive visa process, which I am given to understand is due to how
Russians are treated by the United States.

There are many places where one can be arrested for saying or printing
certain things.  The laws vary.  This was a serious concern when we went
to one country in particular.  We've made the conscious decision to
weight other values over freedom of speech.  The same has happened less
consciously with freedom of religion, even though that has had at least
some impact on us with many stores being closed on certain days.

Each of these issues is not binary, but rather countries' positions
reside on a spectrum.  Their summation is not a simple ANDing.  Were it
so, we would not have any place to go.  The IAOC needs to consider these
matters, weighting the impact to participants.  On the whole I
sympathize with Stephen's position that the IAOC should be as
transparent as possible in its decision making.  Furthermore, certainly
polling the community for their views is always appropriate if the poll
is well constructed (queue Dave Crocker).

Eliot