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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
- Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 IAOC Chair
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 George Michaelson
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… James Seng
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Ted Hardie
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Margaret Cullen
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Jakob Heitz
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Ted Hardie
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Tony Rutkowski
- Re: [E] Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singa… Gross, Scott W
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lixia Zhang
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Xiaohong Deng
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mark Nottingham
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Jose Saldana
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 tom p.
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ole Troan
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… otroan
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Leslie Daigle
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Dhruv Dhody
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Michael Richardson
- RE: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Lemon
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Harish Pillay
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 tom p.
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… nalini.elkins
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Barry Raveendran Greene
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Ted Lemon
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Barry Raveendran Greene
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Melinda Shore
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… nalini.elkins
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… nalini.elkins
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Lawrence Conroy
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dave Crocker
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Melinda Shore
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Dave Crocker
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… John C Klensin
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Niels ten Oever
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Keith Moore
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Carlos Martinez
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Melinda Shore
- IETF-100 maybe it's mostly been said? (Was: Re: [… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Tony Rutkowski
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Keith Moore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lloyd Wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Joel Snyder
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Joe Abley
- Re: IETF-100 maybe it's mostly been said? (Was: R… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… James Seng
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Aaron Morgan
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Derek Jett
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… lloyd.wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dan Harkins
- Why we meet (was Re: [Recentattendees] Background… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Masataka Ohta
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lloyd Wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Thompson, Jeff
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dave Crocker
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Marc Blanchet
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Margaret Cullen
- Success metrics Re: [Recentattendees] Background … Bill Mills
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Rich Kulawiec
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Michael StJohns
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… kathleen.moriarty.ietf
- Value of meeting attendance (was Re: [Recentatten… Melinda Shore
- RE: Value of meeting attendance (was Re: [Recenta… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Jamie Baxter
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dave Hood
- Re: Value of meeting attendance (was Re: [Recenta… Stephen Strowes
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… James Seng
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Robert O'Callahan
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Value of meeting attendance (was Re: [Recenta… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… lloyd.wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… lloyd.wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… lloyd.wood
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John Levine
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John Levine
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… James Seng
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Rich Kulawiec
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dan Harkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mani, Mehdi
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mani, Mehdi
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Naeem Khademi
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mani, Mehdi
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Alexander Nevalennyy
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mary B
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Eggert, Lars
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Michael StJohns
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… David Morris
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Randal Atkinson
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Tim Chown
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Tim Chown
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Naeem Khademi
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Brian Ford (brford)