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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 15:55 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 2991E12D57F; Thu, 26 May 2016 08:55:38 -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 uRb7AWlx87ha; Thu, 26 May 2016 08:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com (mail-oi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) (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 884C512D744; Thu, 26 May 2016 08:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id k23so131197243oih.0; Thu, 26 May 2016 08:55:35 -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=UuDMko/UtHsJEwehfDKGfTf6k+W4jMx1arXtVzQDRNw=; b=tLYGsHtXRFXGMlvAN3Hi8F4BFZOhHHVSnbS8ZIPeXqNCmRAawZlpRCvdC/9xfFg2r7 kSD+qouOcGLloYD/kQYNA18hMwmzVdshUBP67S27W380zjzZgYtGEOxk/GT9gvXdcT+M khk21laVCRtZdrfH1Rki3D331gKKsdlgjFRW1ndMNDVaL/r25oCwOytcvbU+o9YDHshD dt7YGkM9A59ZMjlD8pnKZ0cMxvm4UynB4CwpuTiVt29AHFFl1ggeF9iAeRxSVSgGvVvL RA80lin9LafY/eK8HPBqWT6qZhjs4ai7IXI2mvSELnzXY3ypAxWWNjKBN24fTPveFzKu jJaA==
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=UuDMko/UtHsJEwehfDKGfTf6k+W4jMx1arXtVzQDRNw=; b=GbU5UWLWd0xnZh+oz4Vp+n3lPTJrpPdLR7dceMv/2Rr91v8jepvDB5vV+domWx6Zgd pQIhFQ7V6Fb5cK/G86yJnsWKoE+tbmK4/6B6FhsFGcSsjckXjcvozzNrPYCVpYZbQApt fZ2VHZ9gifkz5HjE6KvAxGfjvxEdlf8WrvxfTpMgrt1+T9pJjeE7NQbbyPYSTz7M/cR6 bnSxmfhzpW3JX4NhU6O3BHZnuUDwKDo2tzTFFwZp/xiP6lJbi05hbnsYlx7JZumY3f0O ucKnJymPt8tgxmRRI6PqRcKQAeIlB77B5yVPCpMTO+vRc39jP48Hr/nucx6bEei4ezBs KG1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLDAP0ulfQ9mWCt1S2XhhwYCFokRwcG9N/mkoR07E/gKOs9KYu8ttTTt/zByzjX0cAjvfJjwuF+Bywwww==
X-Received: by 10.157.49.4 with SMTP id e4mr6790267otc.18.1464278134720; Thu, 26 May 2016 08:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.195.137 with HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2016 08:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <003701d1b720$38acf2f0$aa06d8d0$@unizar.es>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <003701d1b720$38acf2f0$aa06d8d0$@unizar.es>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 08:55:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBEPPsMDC8Hcqh51Zy11q5vad5Ex1u0A=E=4oESD+kZNg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e1ca8128d510533c0d24a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uCmr_U3Rh1CfQ8Iho38SWWKaRc8>
Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@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: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:55:38 -0000

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:

> Another thing to put in the pros and cons: this would set a precedent for
> future meetings.
>
>
Hi Jose,

Just as a reminder, the IAOC has stated explicitly that the decision for
Singapore will not set a precedent.  They wish the discussion around the
principles in Fred's document to set that.  They do not believe they can
wait for that conversation to converge to make this decision, hence the
"decision without precedent" anticipated for this.

regards,

Ted




> This map reflects the current situation worldwide:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage#/media/File:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg
>
> BR,
>
> Jose
>
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: Recentattendees [mailto:recentattendees-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre
> de
> > IAOC Chair
> > Enviado el: jueves, 26 de mayo de 2016 0:08
> > Para: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> > CC: recentattendees@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> > Asunto: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
> >
> > 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
>
>
>