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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 6:12 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I don’t agree it makes a difference if it is a stare-rule of and
> environmental thing, also because as we need to contract the venue 2-3
> years in advance, both situations can change in that period of time.
>

+1

That is not a distinction we make now: at present, there are locations we
avoid at least in part because they are not as safe as the locations to
which we presently go.   I think it would be highly reasonable, and I would
support, a policy that the IETF does not go to any venue where concealed or
open carry is legal, or where controls on the purchase of weapons were not
adequately controlled.

I say this based on the fact that the thing I worry about most in terms of
random mayhem _is_ in fact that there will be some kind of random gun
violence while I or Andrea are out and about.   This has become a matter of
increasing concern over time.   It is a different topic than the Singapore
topic, but let us not pretend that there are not IETFers who have this as a
serious concern.