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

Melinda Shore <> Tue, 24 May 2016 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F34B12D0FC for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 13:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 VxQOPLQUZ0_M for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 13:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C173712D094 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 13:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c189so10121693pfb.3 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 13:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+F7sWg4vucW1lM+LtNdjl94e46tWE+SnR2opsXkiA5I=; b=JP/vvqRX2ZvYbce6eXLMWQSAVheb7tXrgCgscWfvyxr60I0bWZ1KteCkBO9bb2WG6g EDot4dkPoQod19dZKy3xuf23iT9wwzIWCOLbRhpX+9vrxT4qMcBn3ync0pBc+6CmNTZU 9FeVUJA6YFqkRIuqBtUwyOkH8q5PZbhpj23LGM8i0qYQHdrJUfzujb+/tNmM18LSTEL0 V3XFuQ4X9BHkUB1iTYNPC1wt3WBCmgj+To0W90rty1i3n0RBWzHPujc+lhyGuwi2Tn87 PKj98qP5+dwZVGluq73hUxVJ1XZkuNPYzEc+zelktcY+cOjj1ykttodqSlTVYxTCK4gK dZjQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+F7sWg4vucW1lM+LtNdjl94e46tWE+SnR2opsXkiA5I=; b=jYyzOrwQBBHO43K8m4zAhFrh8At8D5Wii+qUEnIAPMMZa8O0O3UrKSniu1emALPp4S a2lSEft94rJELnsm/2/+sivJQSn6V0X8gG9ScF2AWn/QUpt7KxbCD+F+91t7ARGOldXi O13QSjufwfwMavkQimMeHSpsRCx2H03kI50cbwA5kOe4iZR6WVkbx/KjP625gRN9iuYx RG77FJfyLl1RNGydhNmf247dmZxo72jHsTwYtZhm3Cm32LBx1sT3ccXH9TwxvaBTom2X pmu0gidZtX4zxgUAM+f3QQSkyV21Rj8zfuJdQj2rPAnjTCC52QQj22qb43wg1i0n6z+K Y5QA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIr3QanK0R2OjvVKd189fgtGlKv6Olrs4O1d/BTxYS5YqWsEZ537hKGHUKoz9dFWA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id v64mr9606628pfb.149.1464120413307; Tue, 24 May 2016 13:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 7sm8944259pfn.30.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 24 May 2016 13:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Ted Lemon <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:06:32 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 20:08:10 -0000

On 5/24/16 11:57 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> ISTM that the number of people meaningfully negatively affected by
> bringing IETF to Singapore is likely quite a bit smaller than the number
> of people positively affected by bringing IETF to Singapore.

Well, there's some number of us who will not be going
to Singapore as a matter of personal conscience, aside
from those whose families may be at increased risk.
But either way, these seems like an odd way to deal with
problems around diversity and inclusion, and I hope that
people are asking themselves if they'd frame problems
around religious bias, race, and so on in quite the same way.

And for the record, given the difficulties we've had getting
visas for Chinese participants to come into the US, I'm fine
with not meeting in the US until this is resolved.  I'd like
to think that we're not chucking some participants overboard
because assuring their ability to participate is
inconvenient and takes some effort.