Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and r

Hi Ted,

Just on your question and one small nit:

On 5/23/16 11:57 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> One issue that your and others' analyses seems to imply is that the
> 1-1-1-* formulation is not sufficient.  If it were, finding a small
> number of venues that suited us and shuttling among them would
> generate the fairness required.  If the pure 1-1-1-* were sufficient,
> knowing one venue worked (as a strawman, Yokohama) would mean would
> not have to investigate other places.  But your analysis suggests that
> you believe that this is not enough, and that we need to also go to
> South Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., to be fair.
>
> Or am I misreading you?
Partially.  You're right to raise the 1-1-1-* model as a key question to
inclusiveness.  We have been to places that would impinge on LGBT
parental rights, most notably in Asia, and we will do so again shortly. 
The point is that the 1-1-1-* becomes increasingly difficult to satisfy
from a logistical standpoint if our criteria are too strict.  My
understanding is that the IAOC has a difficult enough time as it is
finding venues, especially in Asia.

On the nit: what you see as hyperbole I see as a shorthand for the crux
of this debate.  If, on the whole, those in Europe and the United States
enjoy easier access to venues than others, different development and
standardization avenues will be used, just as they have in the past, and
that will lead to fundamentally different technical approaches.  That's
the fragmentation to which I refer to.

Eliot

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature