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

Ted Hardie <> Mon, 23 May 2016 09:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6798312B057; Mon, 23 May 2016 02:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 SYoQYYmnLGWt; Mon, 23 May 2016 02:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3517B12B020; Mon, 23 May 2016 02:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j1so31547368oih.3; Mon, 23 May 2016 02:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=w0RDD2AQSqUb5VZamJWCLHB4Qn4poNjJ+yBrmLZmxaE=; b=yhd2Rv8+0B+5vrwzv/grcNNQx+xU66n4QxTmZvFypTO/bp5q5f0YVyMjUsx5FbPixu +nZVsyf0J/eoJEF1j3IUthsIiecvb2Xkms0kCuN184OdTpzX7narOpcl6a3fK2jPboB1 vQOCZcNiz5IQr2UzlybrkerSLrgkLQZMtn37aZcieog27C6JU6GKXP9rpWAvYZ3Xgw70 VCCukx7XoDuU8xCYwj+Nf0qpM5FwBlg9FzJ2IfmmLSvbG/qGF5Vr/YaV77885TxzBNAQ M6c2bQ+I8MctKaM/dRwLM0VwLAk/2LGu9HnmV10SVWfVHXLXM6WQyvIl9WvKN3HORfMT /0MQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=w0RDD2AQSqUb5VZamJWCLHB4Qn4poNjJ+yBrmLZmxaE=; b=hP3MfDAoJjS6kRLoaaxFg+guhyKq9zbOFYZ7pmpUPdlc69tRrtFapnQsAScNc+Y6gt byV40iWpFbseV1DcN68ALIO/CxdeBXiOly1gOeuljFqrVXnOx83vRvh1BtwAOOYkE0LM hgX+CWQWlC+l7A81L0dz1SoKdyKv6COmoTV8QoPjm2W53xu2cFx3Y+ivDmtc0sTWs07m /yuDTHmN4FeRRAzeo+6bBmT3yfpnWXF9LJpPXuvwH6/AxGAc/6wAptH9PKc3d5DdgD7g KrcEYsUoacwqM4Ns98Ln2AXQyNrEns1u1Jo8iGjHHXTJV7blgi2ZsPsioBDA1Be2b5N+ BKRw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV5x8lWMqlJ8sFN0d3Sx6/Bh0IGOMWU44SVjKhOAk13iDbEPzAjsXJFhYAj7odzC69lfVihYrZ9jFnyCw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id l63mr9267840otc.48.1463997450496; Mon, 23 May 2016 02:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 02:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 05:57:10 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Eliot Lear <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1149299cfd336505337f77b2"
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, IETF list <>
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 09:57:33 -0000

Hi Eliot,

Quoting your item message, as you prefer, and responding inline.

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Eliot Lear <> wrote:

> Ted,
> On 5/23/16 10:31 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Eliot Lear <> wrote:
>> Hi Ted,
>> Put more bluntly: there will *always* be some group who is at least
>> inconvenienced and at most prohibited from attending a meeting.
> A commitment to inclusiveness is something that takes work.  If you give
> up on it *ab initio *as impossible, it is not a principle, it is window
> dressing.
> You have, however inadvertently, taken a single sentence out of context
> and distorted the meaning of my message.  I wrote in that same message:
> Quite frankly barring a location itself is a form of exclusion, especially
> when taking into account economics.  It may be an *appropriate* exclusion
> if going there means that many others would be excluded.  Kathleen and
> Suresh, and later Dave and Narelle, have made clear that
> diversity/inclusiveness is a broad notion.  Gender, sexual preference, and
> nationality are all listed in Fred's draft, as is religion. {...}
> And this:
> What I find worrying is that we may end up foreclosing participation to
> new members because of their governments' laws.  They need to be considered
> in this discussion, and thus far it feels as though they have not been, and
> often aren't.  That is particularly problematic because it risks the future
> of this organization, which isn't growing very quickly, to begin with.
> While you are certainly entitled to worry about this, reacting to the
worry as you have still feels to me like abandoning the principles *ab
initio*, rather than trying to apply them and seeing where the rough points

One issue that your and others' analyses seems to imply is that the 1-1-1-*
formulation is not sufficient.  If it were, finding a small number of
venues that suited us and shuttling among them would generate the fairness
required.  If the pure 1-1-1-* were sufficient, knowing one venue worked
(as a strawman, Yokohama) would mean would not have to investigate other
places.  But your analysis suggests that you believe that this is not
enough, and that we need to also go to South Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., to
be fair.

Or am I misreading you?

> And so, it's a matter of who we decide to exclude,

And I think this is an astonishingly bad formulation.  I would say instead
"It's a matter of how include folks who cannot meet in a specific venue".

> and the impact that will have on the future of this organization.  The
> only question is whether we will make those decisions consciously and
> conscientiously or not.
Based on the criteria discussed up thread, if you seek such a rigid
> standard,  you will exclude fair access
 (by the way, your use of "fair access" here is what caused me to conclude
that you did not think 1-1-1-* was enough to generate fairness.  If that is
wrong, explaining would help)

to engineers from some of the largest and most populous countries on the
> planet, including India, China, most of Japan, and by the way South Korea,
> all but one of those places we have already visited.  These people are not
> simply going to evaporate if we don't accept their participation, but
> rather they will find other avenues to acceptance of their work.  At the
> same time, critics will say that the IETF is a western endeavor that
> promotes only western values

I think if we come to consensus on the values, they are our values.

> and not a truly international organization.  This, itself, is a form of
> fragmenting of the Internet.

I think that particular hyperbole is damaging.  We are not fragmenting the
Internet by requesting that the physical meetings of one of its technical
bodies be constituted to treat its own principles seriously.


> Eliot