Re: Concerns about Singapore

Tim Chown <> Tue, 12 April 2016 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60ACF12EB69 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.517
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.517 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AfkeRi48hAKp for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C53C012EB2D for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3CBhQSg014369 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:43:26 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 u3CBhQSg014369
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=201304; t=1460461406; bh=VUay0I+sy3Hwyr4HYqwJQSv+6sE=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=zhjjid5Yp8ymEBcM6UVuTxC6AmAL0jmPBRxjp5LqdbeADWC30dxzdrGj3syxZIh2f O1m20+wIduU2qAk8eg5VbUz2J9VnQ9g4LtvBIMWbvRCVuU0KL8VslH+rxQY2ToO+se SZqyB4hhdNTUA99Fo9/G3fBkbrMqh+aZ6+1o1wDw=
Received: from ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id s3BChQ3219206321GJ ret-id none; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:43:26 +0100
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:a88:d510:1101:a93e:5914:9e35:ffe3] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3CBhNA9029840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:43:23 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
From: Tim Chown <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:43:22 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|9aaa87920b361e2e71efe9c7005e927cs3BChQ03tjc||>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: ietf <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=s3BChQ321920632100; tid=s3BChQ3219206321GJ; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: u3CBhQSg014369
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:43:30 -0000


To minimise the chances of a ‘Singapore’ happening again it would seem prudent to

a) re-use previous successful meeting venues for the bulk of our meetings (say, every 5 in 6 meetings); this is one criteria for meeting selection as it stands anyway; that list might include venues like Prague, Berlin, Vancouver, etc.; we’d need to be clear in what ‘successful’ means - the meeting feedback forms provide one such mechanism;

b) be transparent at an early stage about where new venues might be, whether by country or city, so there is a fair chance for people to give feedback; of course, how such feedback is weighed is an open question, but at least it would be there, and the IAOC can then make a decision ‘eyes wide open’.

In such a system, Buenos Aires would have been a ‘1 in 6’ venue. In that light, I’d note that many people have said how much they enjoyed Buenos Aires as a meeting place. And while the IAOC probably feel rather down over the comments about Singapore, they should be praised for going out on something of a limb in making the Buenos Aires selection. (And I’d add that the enthusiasm and helpfulness of the LACNIC hosts was also fantastic.)

In terms of virtual meetings, I’d suggest we try to hold more interim WG meetings, some completely virtually, and learn how to make those better. If we can regularly hold good quality wholly virtual interim meetings, then we can consider whether the same technology might be used for a larger meeting.


> On 12 Apr 2016, at 00:54, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
> While I do not think it's true that we can entirely get away without doing in-person meetings, I do agree with you that we can do better at doing remote meetings.   Perhaps we should let this unfortunate event drive us to make the attempt.
> If we were to attempt such a thing, how do you think it would work?