Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.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 A171312D98B; Thu, 26 May 2016 06:12:30 -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 ThqoxAYErsg0; Thu, 26 May 2016 06:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001: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 40F8F12D633; Thu, 26 May 2016 06:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id f8so52509380ioe.3; Thu, 26 May 2016 06:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=yE7SCISajCXz9ACYywDncl8WNCT6FpIin0bdhI3MCjI=; b=qiwq0gx6uETonKNVflftqLm7v4XUlVS9FYL+gkGw1KIsNLtVZPX0lYkyrCiVdq43c7 XR+S2IZHvZLn6wZj2CcLiAy7Lgdsj7w60ys4W2MooOa5hHswN3qXLbsmTqsw0dVwOcwL OdN5WHNB50geVqG2cWoFNcD0A2nLwFA/h7aRk45mKFAHI5YHhsJr7gygwZzLYhUrwGnb Cw8p9uxlTluYU3Oj/PsPWlW4pgtY4amAHV4vWZqKlkumwIfAeYiNylPKX7mZSvseR6+H SV7NOQgjiMhItTfi2rThq5fjrwq4L8q1NC8X14WVkR9XJXq9FHSe7hdASAI+Qj7bmJWl O4Og==
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=yE7SCISajCXz9ACYywDncl8WNCT6FpIin0bdhI3MCjI=; b=VgnmtChWLvVIup7KfmvXfvrbE4L3GlcOjKJMM8S5ogLp1HsoVxney4Oynjn37hcqHW dcw34aEkl48YelVSnjR+Crfiq+bzbEEFpboTeLvZe6qsbDQCArrXee/AkWVz+RZumEuz a99nyGYfqHsRoBo19Gm8aGg5WglV+Ieo7f3NqBvt+xcKi0nncdQ9jL6Z11HwEBEtPAPI VZL9AClhJ2OJ+iA2POtUmhEf3YzVo4UR7qEquvtKyzL0UnoW7HK5icqvBuwOj6b0nMrL n/IMJ5WoOYuHYbOQrW110hs92P3CKaPlKLdHOTK4nw2XghBaml7silasC/dZYthcnJO2 95BQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tK3ODLptWuk9VJvWi70iIQFZ1T8l9/X52N0Zmu16rCXTlIfVqNlLOdFtPU6ZPxmzqdx+X5Qqc7mFRgQVQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.20.79 with SMTP id 76mr8534271iou.155.1464268341400; Thu, 26 May 2016 06:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.39.2 with HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2016 06:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1BA2C633-3B80-462D-A7F7-D948B159E23F@thinkingcat.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <027501d1b724$632c2c40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <1BA2C633-3B80-462D-A7F7-D948B159E23F@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 18:42:21 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn60i_ycKtriKMG_+GCYW6faoOV=z+oOTO5rbDvfJ3VxeA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114fcebc585c2e0533be8a0d
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/z8c9sV_PiQPmIRAS9pttbl_zIgg>
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <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: Thu, 26 May 2016 13:12:31 -0000

Hi,

I am gay, I live in India, which has a similar sec 377 law on its books.

I hate these laws, I yearn for these laws to change.

I feel the pain of my fellow LGBTQ IETFers.... We do need to worry about
things that others can take for granted.

But pulling out of Singapore, and setting a precedent, would also mean that
we would limit ourselves to a small pool of venues and basically let go of
1-1-1*, that is unacceptable.

There are many of us LGBT folks, who reside in countries that have these
homophobic laws, but we keep the fight on, we live openly, we work, we
play, we pay our taxes, we protest, and we hope to change minds along the
way..... some even attend IETF :)

Adding to Jordi's suggestion, we should support the local Singapore LGBT
community, partner with them and organize something where we take a clear
stand that laws must change. I feel this would be much more productive.

Dhruv



On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>;
wrote:

>
> Hi Tom,
>
> As I indicated in my personal mail earlier this week, there was thinking
> that this message would be accompanied by a survey or some way to collected
> some structured feedback from the community.
>
> In the end, the IAOC decided there was no way to do that properly (the
> challenges of constructing surveys so that they don’t bias for or against
> minorities, etc).
>
> Hearing peoples’ desire to “see the data”, this message was sent.  The
> IAOC is still collecting data, including from this discussion.  In laying
> out the various elements (the obvious and the hidden costs (staff time and
> reprioritization), the restricted range of available alternative sites that
> mean we (the IAOC) don’t see how we can find a good alternate for a meeting
> in 18 months, I think we’re hoping that the context of our business choices
> is clearer, and maybe some other person in this discussion will have an
> insight that has so far escaped us as to how to have an acceptable IETF 100.
>
> Speaking only for myself, I am deeply worried that, with only this
> discussion to hear, we are missing the quieter voices, the people who
> haven’t waded into the free-for-all, etc.  Those types of voices are more
> readily solicited/heard in a working group environment where there is time
> to consider multiple angles and from a more abstracted or objective
> perspective.  A working group is where we’ll ultimately come to conclusion
> on what broader set of of characteristics this community requires going
> forward.
>
> Leslie.
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 26 May 2016, at 3:57, tom p. wrote:
>
> Leslie
>>
>> I am unclear what, if any, action is expected as a result of this
>> message.
>>
>> I understand that the IAOC has to make a decision and yes, I can provide
>> more input via venue-selection if I wish to, but is that all?  Will the
>> IAOC now decide?  If not, what is it waiting for (and how long is it
>> waiting)?
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "IAOC Chair" <iaoc-chair@ietf.org>;
>> To: "IETF Announcement List" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>;
>> Cc: <recentattendees@ietf.org>;; <ietf@ietf.org>;
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 11:08 PM
>>
>> 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
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>