Re: Concerns about Singapore

+1 

> On 11 Apr 2016, at 12:34 PM, Hutton, Andrew 
> <andrew(_dot_)hutton(_at_)unify(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> I agree 100% with Andrew's view.
>
> Regards
> Andy
>
> > On 11 Apr 2016, at 09:05, Andrew Allen <aallen(_at_)blackberry(_dot_)com> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > This is what I mean by slippery slope - once we go down this path it never 
> > ends - in a global community of well over 1000 active people at least one 
> > person is likely to have a problem with some aspect of most of the countries 
> > governments, policies, cultures or actions, etc.
> >
> > We could be left with the only possible venue being a cruise ship sailing in 
> > international waters - but then someone will probably object because the 
> > ship is registered in Panama or Liberia!
> >
> > The focus should be on choosing a location for the meeting that is open for 
> > all to attend and where it is reasonably safe to attend and meets the needs 
> > of a meeting for a large number of people and represents the regional 
> > balance of the membership. 
> >
> > The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by producing 
> > high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people 
> > design, use, and manage the Internet.
> >
> > The IETF is not an organization that's mission is to be an advocate for 
> > global social, environmental or political change. The selection of a meeting 
> > location should be for the purposes of advancing the IETF's mission. I think 
> > some of the concerns raised about Singapore need to be addressed in terms of 
> > the practical impact and risk to the attendance of some in the IETF 
> > community but we shouldn’t start down the road of choosing or not choosing 
> > meeting locations based on an evaluation of a countries laws, culture and 
> > policies and whether those are acceptable to all or most of the community.
> >
> > Debates over whether a location is politically or morally acceptable will 
> > only distract from the mission of the IETF and likely divide the community 
> > rather than help in making progress towards forming consensus on the future 
> > development of the internet.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Vinayak 
> > Hegde
> > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 10:24 PM
> > To: chopps(_at_)chopps(_dot_)org
> > Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> > Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:46 AM,  <chopps(_at_)chopps(_dot_)org> wrote:
> > > It's certainly relevant to me, b/c I don't personally think that IETF 
> > > meetings should be held in oppressive and censoring countries. I don't 
> > > know how to articulate this well -- others are better at it -- but I 
> > > certainly would like to skip any meetings that I feel violate IETFs 
> > > value of openness so that I can at least vote with my feet and my 
> > > dollars.
> > Well how does this work with Internet's (and IETF's) mission of 
> > inclusiveness. Applying the same scale of "oppressiveness", I am sure large 
> > parts of the world think the same about the US/UK which has waged wars in 
> > Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Argentina (our latest venue) and 
> > elsewhere.
> >
> > The IETF doesn't seem to have a problem having meetings in these countries. 
> > I hope the majority of participants on this list realise that they are 
> > viewing the world through a western prism.
> >
> > The notion of punishing the general populace for the mistakes of their 
> > elected and unelected govt. seems wrong to me. Many times, the general 
> > populace of the country is fighting their govt. through the Internet. eg. 
> > Turkey.
> >
> > -- Vinayak