I have a +1 for the general sentiment but some disagreement with the statement
"it's a shame that some members of the IETF community cannot bring their family
and/or be open and honest about their relationships". To my understanding that
is not clearly the case and needs some further investigation to determine what
the precise legal situation is and how it applies particularly with regard to
individuals coming from countries where their status is perfectly legal.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dan Harkins
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 1:09 PM
To: venue-selection(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Interim step on meetings site feedback — for sites currently
under active consideration
First off, Oxford comma. Next, what's an "ethnical" person? And third, as I
observed at the plenary, bringing in a very diverse opinion set on
inclusiveness and accessibility will make us only meet in Western Europe, North
America, and Japan. And what's in the queue for consideration? Western Europe
and North America. Sigh.
There are plenty of reasons to not meet in Singapore and it's a shame that
some members of the IETF community cannot bring their family and/or be open and
honest about their relationships. But I think these issues should be balanced
with the overall benefit that the IETF World Tour provides. We are a diverse
group and I think we leave each city a little better off after we depart
because of it. Embargoes seldom have the desired effect.
regards,
Dan.
On Mon, April 18, 2016 9:15 am, The IAOC wrote:
All,
The IAOC and its meetings committee are continuing to review the
situation with respect to meeting in Singapore. As I noted about a
week ago [1], we are reviewing our meeting planning procedures to
ensure that we have input at appropriate points to ensure issues are
identified and addressed before contracts are signed and announcements
made. This will mean more transparency, including sharing the list of
cities under consideration when we have a workable way to handle and
hear the feedback. We will make concrete progress on that at our retreat in
a few weeks time.
In the meantime, we do have active site discussions and negotiations
ready to close for meetings that are coming up. In addition to
reaching out to groups or agencies that have specific knowledge about
travel for diverse groups including religious, ethnical and LGBTQ
people, we are reaching out to the IETF community as a whole with this note.
In order to make sure we haven’t overlooked something else that
should have been properly considered for sites under consideration, as
well as to gather some running code on how a feedback process might
work, we would like to hear from anyone who is aware of reasons we
could not have a successful meeting in any of the following cities, or
of any limits to attendee accessibility or inclusiveness that should be
considered:
Paris
Montreal
Copenhagen
Please send your input to venue-selection(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org. It will help
the
review process if the Subject line had the name of the city first,
Subject: <city>.
In order not miss the contract opportunities, city-specific input
would be most helpful if received by the end of May 2, 2016.
Other input on the process will be best received in e-mail at
venue-selection(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org with the Subject line: Process. As we
iterate the process we will continue to seek input to fashion a
meeting planning process that works.
Leslie,
for the IAOC.
[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hKwBYOwPkE6VTA4mxxf00NTLLF0
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC ldaigle(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com
-------------------------------------------------------------------