Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

James Seng <james.seng@gmail.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <james.seng@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 BB66312DE10; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:39:54 -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=unavailable 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 vyhPQE9Ynj0S; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x233.google.com (mail-ob0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) (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 26D1D12DDE1; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-x233.google.com with SMTP id dh6so2794919obb.1; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:30:38 -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=o5plQxG9t2ZM5gfGjQUIUfJWuEZc2CX/UP2dEuo814E=; b=NVd7wwCm5SlPqvZPk5AptV85NIlvGT0xjHJjmKPHaGgB1oYPKyXWkOOAX6pZULPb8Z a7NPrLhRRW8VZpBvXn7h1mvIl9KiVtHDZyAzIHzThJsxAVSkJeqLudxlkZ9jgdzictk1 3oCcTJvMK3SeseGlUR+dqgdfZu8WBlzYKa50l0ydS16CQpwVNXcOA5roLp6SLV4DedG3 FtpVXnvuZwSEDdQZBw6M8w8shbfhWNxxO5eX2DI+aFLBfecAw6/XUsxTJKkb3jHaY+i5 sNmXaekFwCqlQs4l//aQURgEsSukyRveVsoN1ZzAHDR9Rv9/NZ3PU2DFxfhNkHFoWWj5 oO1w==
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=o5plQxG9t2ZM5gfGjQUIUfJWuEZc2CX/UP2dEuo814E=; b=ZLEEzan26fbClmEvGqNDhYiJwRhkDJxKWnZIBCnl1o7MQcQBRNixiMcVvSoCEtstJC SzXSDyNd1NCQ1kxdHl4OKbYYr6F7cAXd1sJx6prZ+UMehepPeAg4TM/bYy7gxTlXwNGi gt0T+sNV2SVfw6a99IWnFpsEmFHm6WnXdwXRhDZg2Ku2Zf28beTqh1/VP9UWZmvrHCft SiqvDHmdyCp1NWpMJzx0jsqXWueKVREoTIY0B25mIEMtC3BMDqmWDGIRLyYHmHrEFz91 H2G+ljKExODpbDuvkOSa9fu2FQXLxeg0sFjJDt2ND7oJe6NKT3M2qWIXtwS3w7/H26eR bNdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKnr0fQwUrjfW1DmwAC8JIzmtidM9IJZQlxiugzrJyBzQUfEjkwVGeKUmxl52zfWFYishuiJRzNuVwaOQ==
X-Received: by 10.202.85.145 with SMTP id j139mr3576102oib.100.1464215432415; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.11.6 with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: James Seng <james.seng@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 06:30:03 +0800
Message-ID: <CA+ruDECZHwhUopzCu4wX98TzGmxfG8p_qF82qcPTOzzOUekMvg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, venue-selection@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113df3ecb94ff90533b238eb
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/t3ckRKqAdgFyZy7huJA5A-0t-2g>
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 22:39:55 -0000

I am a Malaysian who grow up in Singapore, spend most of my life in
Singapore. I also used to work for the Singapore government (IDA) and work
closely with them on many things. I continue to have many friends in
Singapore in high places altho I have left Singapore many years ago (I live
in Beijing now).

I do not support the discrimination of same-sex law of Singapore (commonly
known as 377A) and would like it repeal as much as anyone who wish to
celebrate the love of any two individuals.

But since when IETF is taking on social injustice beyond solving technical
& engineering problems of the Internet?

IETF is not Global Action for Trans Equality. IETF is not International
Federation for Human Rights.

I am surprised it has decided to go down this path. If social injustice and
other agendas beyond engineering become a basis of our consideration for
IETF venue, then there is literally no country in the world would qualify
to hold IETF meeting.

-James Seng

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:08 AM, 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Recentattendees mailing list
> Recentattendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
>



-- 
-James Seng