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

<> Mon, 23 May 2016 03:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D069312D60C for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 20:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pzzQBZReNGX5 for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 20:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3739312D607 for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 20:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1463972542; bh=M+cNCgXCkPp3J+MUyDAzbYKLpvQZx51Sad+Zedp3bTw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=DuBwawtoZDfLSo7J6cgrr9TcGeEn2+xRzWROxaMsVZUJ6TgvzOZu7yVMhIMBOkxq24RPlAWjG/1fqPiTbP7md6kpPdekaXbZWiw0WgewR9lGhMvy17V5UDdyAirN/ucX6+8laxHIGR/wYAZzRtAfHG5SxZ/lm9J8SKnVD0ZoGZEaMH5ts8tzR5Q0Q+gE7Oo8M0y9qRgu8+YsvqzClRXMkJAC0NVtlUITT/tx+kNKS0dbleD9lzIoXWON+UOEayfzelOBnrJHdC6WY7inwEhxbho3pqqnfI2dPe/eqL/DbZinbkKIsu2W9OzWLU7bzPr6UhpCewQmkTZM+/n3HfjpRA==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 23 May 2016 03:02:22 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 23 May 2016 02:59:21 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 23 May 2016 02:59:21 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 23 May 2016 02:59:21 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 23 May 2016 02:59:21 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-YMail-OSG: cAhAY58VM1mzsMNxsUEjbLEfiee7dZaXi2tbD6NIkEGUplt5Zv6cyfTCpAym0ua xhDZnJLjU5zQh8apfCWyc73k4t6yfUO9pZPYJNUAWxO1ivWp7o_kV5TxjEXBNviqv5U.rImGJPxJ X1ZUDs305bZtig.AblNW0nLp9QHb6sXpadDo82DtH.PHQaNuz.XPtDkhJz_.1r.a9__T1ecoRTzr NArGHTvkCptH.J0ZinhqhKvVPKblS.PtPxC2y4KZ2kINAHfxgmLdbdfwsgeGx4khOEVLO7mcjY75 Qy0NpZiXO1g.LxjMi7Vmxw2gQI7OPrBF.I7XtC.7RQqnRuA32yzTNde7irwyg8.ksjgq2XkrIml0 unJ4o4Y2mXV40Z2XhlCJCjY2LVFUfbW8uqw0IrT_jthegRsBfHD0.gaYN.Y4dnRl55AwbHPYUDTu 9T9CVA15qlX.m7ROvyCM2rMttWu_DNXrFwLxuXEksK2mf2JYT5IvAi0fwCqi27FcrH1xhcYclRfu WLke3YoMoEnnDlZWftLWnWNh49TITORHc0nbFF38-
Received: from by; Mon, 23 May 2016 02:59:20 +0000; 1463972360.915
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 02:59:20 +0000
To: "" <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Mon, 23 May 2016 03:02:25 -0000

> It has been said many times, is not about GLBT, 

Well, it is not _just_ about GLBT.

But I suspect this conversation vanished up its own bottom quite a while back.

How's the boycotting of countries with nuclear weapons going?
 Lloyd Wood 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, 22 May 2016, 5:12
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Absolutely not, all is about the same discussion. Is about how we select the venues.

It has been said many times, is not about GLBT, is about which country respect all the rights. Is about US or Spain, or country “x”, respecting everything, each country has their own rules, we like it or not. There are many many many possible reasons not to go to US for subset of participants.

I’m not saying I agree with those rules, neither any kind of unequal treatment, not at all. 

What I’m saying is that if we start taking in consideration EVERY possible unequal treatment, politial issues, safety, health, terrorist risks, crime level, etc., etc., etc., then we will NEVER find a good venue.

We can’t find a trade off if we start considering all those issues, so we need to have on top of our priority list the principal reason for the meetings.

I will agree that if being married with a same sex person don’t allow you to go into a specific country, then the country should be banned, but if is a matter of traveling or not with that family, then we shouldn’t take that into consideration for cancelling that venue, because you have the choice to not travel with the family.

IETF is part of our work (some got paid by their companies for it, others not). Let’s take it as if we are “IETF” contractors. We work for IETF, same as we work for our employeer.

If our employeer send us to Singapore, and our famility can’t travel there, we have to choices: 1) Go there without family and do the work 2) Tell our boss, sorry, will not go there.

In many countries, if you tell your boss, sorry I will not go there because I can’t bring my family, this means you’re breaking your contract and you will be fired.

Again, I’m not saying I agree, what I’m saying is that we must put all the apple in the decision basket, but we must have a prioritization for all them and if we can do the work safely, with no famiily, then  we must not exclude that venue.

Otherwise, ALWAYS we may find a smal group of IETF participants that have issues with a specific venue, and if we don’t repect EQUALLY all the cases, then is the venue selections criteria and in consequence all of us, who are doing an unequal treatment to different groups of participants.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <> en nombre de Melinda Shore <>
Responder a: <>
Fecha: sábado, 21 de mayo de 2016, 20:29
Para: <>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>On 5/21/16 10:14 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> What about announcing venues and cancelling because whatever
>> circumstances?
>Please don't do the slippery slope thing.  Seriously.
>This is about a specific circumstance.
>Also, understand that you're asking that GLBT people accept
>different conditions for participating in an IETF meeting.  I
>strongly agree that our top priority is, and has to remain,
>getting work done.  But, for better or for worse, a lot of
>participants bring their family members, and there are some
>basic questions here about equal and unequal treatment, aside
>from the potential safety issues.