Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.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 C851912DE1E; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, LOTS_OF_MONEY=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 HAUCWiV688m3; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22b.google.com (mail-oi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) (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 3C22712DE15; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id b65so98886642oia.1; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5oxE5S4kYZKZPYHmFUXKupw52HyBx+dE9FYuT+0ZFP8=; b=HzcNz2NUclek6GXELt0On2ziBWWo+jK2eTRfCCNgJNaMubfjJ4qt0T9YPqeF7u2S4n kK52hZJ2d4GBRxkg8I9rSG0U92aR72hSTa/SkdoInwyJ/J2ftZYDD+91PIz/uAwHJnnP 1BiPBg7H37UY2qKARbbh0CUT1/NLDLCOa2qdTpsJevrewAVphAuh82z3b3K37+pO85f/ iSC9mYIQUjJnEt1z0xGkusmAR83kAkxpVpI9MThDsiTNx1B+VyBDU8FwJCHGXdd3X6yx hHFvJWW0vPFADvrogU0sUppjt18aVRDtkLCXbHyRXJ57gZGJ6AVK9H2Z+fL3yVhJO09O FfMw==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5oxE5S4kYZKZPYHmFUXKupw52HyBx+dE9FYuT+0ZFP8=; b=is3tG2ktDS7lYQAcpAFBbncQiWh4whPSoLVktqUjVCcBlAdZRrkBxsmmz//RnLL4KS cmHivg/7ce/hTEaLVldsW8J7Kci7CpIeTxM4Z19P0ZbC7wt7Xg5HERzbVk4aIgFXEOmU LvJFEw4R3IRC/6mI+s+PhbtOZubLPiLgAraUhhOdM/korQTSbIhkHJ3s3kAc3KnCVVh0 eSKP62+JiMpukGaH+area0B+0wJ2JlfDMAOBMrRxf8ciosqa4/SrBc7Rzq4CGGZdOowT uqPHjeevKZnqFrJcG3LVMwgJse04P6553cQhyHVerMPl19/2MAu++q9U8E6ImKzBa6Ev FUfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKgEvpaINEB6KHQ/0uhEhum8ZAczbsmooNKcHJGj+Ynw/L6iOBVXA4YMar1v2NP7g2l7hImSQGCdW1P8A==
X-Received: by 10.157.1.140 with SMTP id e12mr4042300ote.180.1464215490028; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.195.137 with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:31:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDaTmkV9Q_tOH8od_xm7uXntJ5fzp9uyAnuPt=cTFQGXA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114fd90c286a4c0533b23c03
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/s-P-waXohctAeCB67rUXVPmoDPI>
Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:40:28 -0000

After the first message on from the IAOC related to this announcement, I
asked a clarifying question of the IAOC on their understanding of what
"Singapore can function as a meeting location for IETF100" entailed (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg98101.html).  In
Leslie's mail of the 23rd (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg98176.html), there was
an acknowledgement that the IAOC had not yet responded to this request.

If this message is meant to contain that response, I do not find it.  I
would like to know if the IAOC has an answer or, if not, when it expects to
provide one.

Ted Hardie

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:08 PM, IAOC Chair <iaoc-chair@ietf.org>; wrote:

> All,
>
> In the IAOC's previous message on this topic we stated that the IAOC
> believed that it is possible to hold a successful meeting in Singapore, and
> that meeting in Singapore is the best option for IETF 100.  This statement
> was based on several factors, including evaluation of the site based on the
> requirements and process now being updated and tracked in
> draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02.  In particular, this
> included consulting with the additional information sources identified in
> the document (specialty travel services, etc), and no specific issues were
> identified as to actual situation in Singapore.  More detail on the
> information we have to hand is provided below.
>
> Additional arguments have come forward since our earlier messages,  which
> leads us to continue exploring.  The IETF Chair has been in touch with the
> meeting host, which is obviously another factor in whether we can/should
> move.   But we need to make a decision, so this message contains such
> information as we have at present.  We understand that it is difficult to
> express a view about what to do in the absence of known alternatives; but
> we do not know what the alternatives are now, and we need urgently to make
> a decision, so we are sharing the incomplete information we have in the
> interests of transparency.
>
>
> Laying this out in a pro/con format:
>
>
> Not Singapore:
> --------------
>
> If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward
> positive impacts include:
>
>         . We might have the opportunity to establish the meeting in a
> venue that permits more IETF participants to be comfortable being present
> and engaging in a celebration of this milestone meeting, which is important
> to some.
>
>
>
> If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward
> negative impacts include:
>
>         . Losing approximately $80,000 (USD) hotel agreement cancellation
> fee[1]
>
>         . Losing up to approximately $150,000 (USD) in Singapore
> government incentives [2]
>
>         . Re-prioritizing people time to find a new location (the IAD,
> Secretariat staff) who have full plates for lining up other future
> meetings; there’s an unknown amount of impact in terms of how that impacts
> *other* meetings (N.B.:  some of this effort is already underway to obtain
> the information on possible alternatives and outline the pros/cons outlined
> here).
>
>         . Likelihood of IETF 100 in Asia is very small — we have few
> prospects and it takes us months to get all the pieces aligned to get to a
> signed contract in Asia (Singapore took over a year).  This would create
> additional challenges for our Asian community members (travel distance,
> visas).
>
>         . Possible shift of dates — to be able to find a venue elsewhere
> that works
>
> We have some wiggle room in the point about time to find a new venue
> insofar as it would be easiest to use a North American site that we have
> used before.   If we have to consider non-North American, and/or new venues
> where a site visit is needed, effort and cost will be higher.
>
> Note, we should only cancel the Singapore contract once we know that an
> alternative venue, that is acceptable to community, is ready to put under
> contract.   The cost of cancellation ($80k now) goes up to $192k if we
> don’t cancel before November 2016 (i.e., a few months from now).
>
>
> We do have to give the hotel a reason for canceling our contract:
>
> Reasons for Cancellation of IETF 100 Meeting in Singapore, and the IAOC
> understands that to be:
>
> “    Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men and
>     preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create
>     difficulties for same-sex partners and their children; these have
>     discouraged affected members of our community from participating
>     at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced
>     others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them.
>
>
>     Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the meeting
>     in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.”
>
>
>
> If we stick with Singapore for IETF 100:
> ----------------------------------------
>
> If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward
> positive impacts include:
>
>         . we have a functional meeting venue set for our 3rd meeting of
> 2017
>
>         . meeting site research resources can remain focused on filling in
> the remaining gaps in the 3-4 year timeframe
>
>         . we don’t have the financial hit of the cancellation fee, and
> possible loss of government incentives
>
> If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward
> negative impacts include:
>
>         . we have a meeting at a location where some community members
> will perceive themselves as unwelcome and unsafe, unable to bring family
>
>         . possibly fewer attendees than we might otherwise expect — which
> is a consideration for both getting work done and financial reasons
> (registration fees per person)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The above is the practical information as we can best scope it.
>
>
> If you would like to provide some considered feedback on this matter,
> please feel free to send it to venue-selection@ietf.org .  Please note
> that mailing list is a PUBLICLY archived “drop box” [3].
>
>
> Leslie Daigle, for the IAOC.
>
>
> [1] The cancellation fee can be recovered if it is used as a deposit at a
> later meeting with those hotels in Singapore, if it is before 2020; for
> this discussion, it’s perhaps best to consider it gone.
>
> [2] Government business incentives are not unusual; we might obtain these
> in another country hosting IETF 100, but we are late to be expecting
> incentives and opportunities for good deals, and are unlikely to get this
> in a North America venue.
>
> [3] The venue-selection mailing list is not open for subscription, and it
> is not intended to archive dynamic conversations (i.e., don’t cc it on an
> e-mail discussion thread, because there will be too many addressees and
> your mail won’t go through).
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>