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

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> If we are going to bring breastfeeding into this, which seems reasonable,
> it's worth asking if someone can actually construct a situation in which the
> breastfeeding mother would be present with the baby, but the local
> government would not recognize _her_ parental rights.   Or is the concern
> that if she were incapacitated, the other parent would be unable to take
> responsibility for the baby?   I think you have to engage in some pretty
> significant contortions to construct this as a problem that the IAOC
> absolutely must, out of fairness, solve.   That said, I have no personal
> experience in this, so I'm asking, not telling: is there a scenario where
> this would actually be a problem?   How likely is this in practice?

This was brought up to explain that it is sometimes necessary to
travel with family, kids & a support person (who may or may not be
family).  It's just a concrete example of it being a necessity.
Thanks, Alia for spelling out all of the reasons that make it a
necessity as I didn't want to :-)  Sure, this doesn't fall into a
reason why two men in a relationship need to bring their child, but
Ted said he had to miss a meeting, so there are likely other reasons
that make it necessary to bring a child and companion or not be able
to attend.

I didn't attend BA.  My son would have needed to come although he was
a bit too young for travel at that point.  He will be with me in
Berlin and Seoul.

Kathleen

>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Jordi,
>>
>> I've never heard any indication that the extremely minimal companion stuff
>> (a mailing list and one gathering that the companions pay for) has factored
>> into the IAOC venue-selection.
>>
>> It's always easy to give up - in the abstract - things that don't affect
>> you.
>>
>> In this particular instance, the concern is about keeping legal
>> guardianship & medical concerns in a
>> country whose laws may not recognize familial ties legal in other
>> countries.   There can certainly be personal
>> reasons why bringing a child along is necessary - and they don't require
>> others' judgement as to whether those
>> reasons are "deserving" enough.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alia
>>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1  to drop companion stuff IF it is increasing the IAOC venue-selection
>>> criteria difficulties, and I want to make it clear, even if it affects me
>>> personally at any time.
>>>
>>> Even if is only for simple curiosity (I don’t think our decisions must
>>> consider other organizations decisions, but is always good to know), it will
>>> be nice to know if venue-selection-criteria of other similar organizations
>>> take in consideration possible “difficulties” for companion/familties.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jordi
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>>> De: ietf <[e-mail]> en nombre de Yoav Nir
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> Responder a: <[e-mail]>
>>> Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 20:52
>>> Para: Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
>>> CC: <[e-mail]>
>>> Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path
>>> forward and request for input
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> On 24 May 2016, at 9:28 PM, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On 5/24/16 10:14 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> >>> Then I guess where I disagree with both you and Melinda is that I
>>> >>> don’t
>>> >>> think the ability to bring families along should be an important
>>> >>> consideration.
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't, either, but as long as the IETF does, and provides
>>> >> a companion program, I feel quite strongly that IETF travel
>>> >> should be equally accessible to all families.  I'd personally
>>> >> be good with dropping the companion stuff UNLESS it was done
>>> >> specifically to avoid problems with travel to places hostile
>>> >> to same-sex partners.
>>> >
>>> >I would be happy with dropping the companion stuff for many reasons. The
>>> > fact that it adds considerations and criteria to the IAOC’s decision process
>>> > that already has way too many criteria is just another reason to drop it.
>>> >
>>> >Yoav
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen