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

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.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 302C712D0FC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 13:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 0Je-SKeT-srS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 13:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3873F12D094 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id y2so37059431vka.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Cd1Evyc9bGthKQYeU2FF7xS7BmvjSlr3v8+QkCdSFeE=; b=e3/VBgObmU3LQZSORGZ9P0Ru3Vj6E6/Mxy4vbs1VzxP9iNAXXqLq8UgmZV4kJpYjWD nMO7E/yiYMD+8LY5rlo/9wWfCX+ysReYAm9PMpNZXPHYADdHPsTmOXoy/rDKdUCVpV4c vBm1elRn13HHsy7GgsD/JCWFPEuFs3dkLjUOPjowDMuu8L1cuo+W2qlz0EvCC4oaI07k fJHM+jfKeTZQr0DyOMaeCubFnRICkaa84o8YZdEzU5lYqt27QSPmCLsIL7BSeLCdWNzR niMNTGH9I4iZPId2zgMahMqjcM3lmEOImLPzWsNY0vO9tCcBNcBITme6P7j5B5vMMe07 PjLQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Cd1Evyc9bGthKQYeU2FF7xS7BmvjSlr3v8+QkCdSFeE=; b=jbJ0KYK15wRHYVezG1XCPJHYn3uni7SiLxY8ftjBqosYjFQ4N8NhmUjdrWyXGoHLRI eLryRq8m7TUrDLGoX4tmNDStgzqE9qAEleQGaoQQRBzI4eF5nAccqTDOvzTlqEujBeI9 ypBT7vYbntcMlZTeqL41Wbzm1h9IyytAicI+GsH5upBcw4cbyL1rwqq5Jqr8jIb6w7k5 BeDR72Q8Z5PyB0h6gzKnAdYI289bxwOSVGO5BfxCyP+ElQmOyZXKGTZczmF3nXSXPa1z nNoI8HcmeyLLLZFwshfhRaQPu+4Pufglrd6/rrbXUQcJQb7QHsCNbIWQ8PkM0Na6EjmZ x6tA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJrE9MPB32TUzWZWVNQ1cX3wb5ZtrWOqiu6f4BF2E/46QhipUX6g6HmKOqUmFmzOG4urpOvc4+kk/7Q2A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.176.0.10 with SMTP id 10mr12181uai.15.1464120619029; Tue, 24 May 2016 13:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.159.54.231 with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2016 13:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1kG2_P5yBEOrajkNXZms438xRZuQTTcPnWnGDoqkYZCUQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D3662363.190A96%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <CAHkmkwtEtDk4sPv3GjkrSFqOdRV3HBA5i2_uZu3X2D4RxSF4wA@mail.gmail.com> <2e95fd51-23b8-39e7-d4ca-a9fc9d49559c@gmail.com> <CAHkmkwsf3YfFfR7jUHYnaw6dCrasMOazjbXPJRRhZS28k8HV0w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1605241405210.28372@uplift.swm.pp.se> <714DDDE2-562D-488A-AAAA-F8DE3C2CA97D@consulintel.es> <FE76F502-617E-4190-BFF5-649EC9CFECAC@consulintel.es> <CABcZeBMPAFdLwZTr7TCJC-tZ+X=CKGzQ7Jp0zqDO86PdPn6YvQ@mail.gmail.com> <8D82EA4F-1275-436C-8030-1E799F5D7F59@consulintel.es> <CABcZeBOCtk6JK_3w2_L87oyze+dfgy7fFyU7QrGmGgEtta1oZA@mail.gmail.com> <1CA535AB-CAC4-49CB-B094-AAA7FE3119FB@consulintel.es> <2b01eb8f-d319-7d20-0f84-9a774f9e0e44@nostrum.com> <C01AE269-3168-4B6A-B8D8-D97230288302@gmail.com> <8161273d-97c2-2757-5f0c-6146d0b297aa@nostrum.com> <E51DA1A2-AB3E-42F7-BC0A-308BE6B58580@gmail.com> <2270ea7c-cd6d-c3d5-e768-6d1f0ae15605@nostrum.com> <216D2B11-5E07-4DBE-BCC4-0A8ABCCB15B7@gmail.com> <cf9ad015-ef7d-6e11-44e8-6a0fb5a78b91@gmail.com> <EBBFC64A-C730-47D8-8F66-E4C7773A0344@gmail.com> <D5E06CF1-9C2D-41BE-8635-1F73321986EC@consulintel.es> <CAG4d1rfvYrW5TDCzdUoFeeQFnsDejWFn7jH+20xnJ4QHEsJ=2g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kG2_P5yBEOrajkNXZms438xRZuQTTcPnWnGDoqkYZCUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:10:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH5WHbUQjUa1Ff5t9xjw8zFx-4ajQaAH5Gx5n-BocKMq0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rYbFVE-BZ8aXSnQPXPJEtBYvzF8>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 20:11:20 -0000

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> 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 <akatlas@gmail.com> 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
>> <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> 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 <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Yoav Nir
>>> <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
>>> Responder a: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
>>> Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 20:52
>>> Para: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
>>> CC: <ietf@ietf.org>
>>> Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path
>>> forward and request for input
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> On 24 May 2016, at 9:28 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
>>> >> 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