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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sat, 21 May 2016 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 0DA6E12D13B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 zCLx3Y2RLWlh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (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 1B89B12B028 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id e126so35641901lfg.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gT7iV2K2xLbwn2XzNTDdu/4Lk0x+VjBlcvUMjQjbigQ=; b=najMe8OGcMMTqQ0WmSjqiIXCJhc44BxoIKXK1NB60zDIMh4KSKMrhI8SxsCC2Rhx1h b/nzV4daCLpvIwGUrorsRHDDdhlgeWCeOgNlFPTn6Es+kTp6058eJKQhqrcEaTmAuJWF R9bU6PBT6s/6ZefC2uoSzYjgiKKZQvfrPnlrRuh2zFOjFruM4h2+liF6KfNHjG53ekmO niq2qeytr9pkRq6TihtJFkq20nH+cZ/45VUOiImSC9rIleaAEG+2u9U7k6qQuHqzjbxl VRXkkPKwyYAcm7ZTNK63KfFjQKPduk+5odrBEhEh9O/81np8ZA/IK42Ogc+dskU1pJ96 mIZg==
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=gT7iV2K2xLbwn2XzNTDdu/4Lk0x+VjBlcvUMjQjbigQ=; b=KMTP9KU0A10lnjUFVLGR8tjn50Is2Lh2ijeZhjUaaTTFD1uh4XA26r4lGMjtKij1+N NnwIQ5uu8IZTimdbDINUGH0NK5BpxE0pOsq8evzghtJ4tHzdHAcvtLaqvEvqo8r0DPUK qhYIBOnLPpTANK3afsCAf0pwID7HW+UJ1OTBxfogquauQia9RpQZ/WqgV511em7UoAIG HDmk5xX7IVgYliuRFpJb2iA49CcpcMKNzQeVbRlNHDhrz7L7lu+K4CT1NOZBoileECdU VEgfUo0IhsNyYSsyarywrAaH2Pc3Rf2zbJG8abKQPtbgb4lf7o/nM3c2I3cpZGFFi5i8 DMvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVd+hrQj8nPgnXG1r42paw5lT8jv95uQq8SAykGIRh7NJhSS5wY3gRC94WKUnaBsxSyY4aw097sn99wyQ==
X-Received: by 10.25.21.156 with SMTP id 28mr3045899lfv.124.1463869850281; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.153.135 with HTTP; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C4EC346-A749-4F75-957F-9E4DE31A7771@consulintel.es>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es> <5740A90E.2030200@gmail.com> <34CC7DDE-3341-4BF8-8238-B32176EDC72A@consulintel.es> <55BAE36899C13FA1D0565FAF@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <2ceffd31-c78f-f6f7-116e-85498b4413f1@gmail.com> <2768F29AB5526E6C2A19CE3D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <4C4EC346-A749-4F75-957F-9E4DE31A7771@consulintel.es>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 18:30:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1m3ZCmvfYPxkKB7fg8TtSWqg1A0FikknFJ8+DqhJpjxPw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114067766c7a4e053361c265
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tzKdzXMAaZLAK7C34xdYbw5XCKU>
Cc: ietf <ietf@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: Sat, 21 May 2016 22:30:54 -0000

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 6:12 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi.palet@consulintel.es> 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.