+1
There becomes a time where things that may have been acceptable 100 years ago
are something I am not willing to support. The expression “because it’s 2016”
comes to mind. Ultimately the choice of venue location is up to the IETF
community - yes - to execute the selection of a hotel it has to be delegated
via multiple levels - but in the end, the community needs to be OK with the
choice. Are they ? I’m not a fan of the current choice for IETF 100.
And let me add … there have been many cases where the I* members and other
participants, both men and women, needed to be able to bring family members for
them to be able to participate.
On May 22, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Allison Mankin
<allison(_dot_)mankin(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I can't write as eloquently as Ted, Melinda, Jon, and several others have,
but I want to add another voice for trying to move IETF 100 out of Singapore.
This Singapore law dictates unequal treatment of some active IETF meeting
participants simply for living their normal lives. Melinda's latest email
says it very well: "if people in opposite-sex relationship can and do bring
their families, it's pretty clear what label the inability of same-sex
partnered participants to do the same would fall under."
It's in the hands of an authoritarian government to prosecute and maybe
imprison our colleagues for their normal lives, while others in the IETF do
not face this risk. This isn't the same as inconvenience. It could result
in imprisonment of individuals for travel plans that are exactly the same as
other attendees. I appreciate that the IAOC has resolved to consult
experts on travel in future, and try to avoid this happening again, and I
thank you for this. If there are insurmountable reasons why we must stick
to Singapore for IETF 100, please explain. Count me as someone who thinks
it is worth some cost to make the change.
Allison
On 21 May 2016 at 17:38, Peterson, Jon
<jon(_dot_)peterson(_at_)neustar(_dot_)biz
<mailto:jon(_dot_)peterson(_at_)neustar(_dot_)biz>> wrote:
There's a reason this discussion has come up around IETF 100, though. While
I'm sure IETF participants would be tempted to view this as just another
meeting, there's a sense in which it has to be more than that. A lot of us
have spent much of our careers working in this organization, and developing
professional and personal relationships here. IETF 100 will be a work meeting
and not a vacation opportunity, but I think attached to that work meeting
should also be a celebration, and one where the personal relationships may
matter more than usual.
When I hear that long-time participants, people that have been around longer
than me, feel like they need to sit this one out because of where it is
happening, or worry about bringing their families to a meeting where we
expect that these enduring relationships will be celebrated, that makes me
think we as a community need to arrive at a consensus about whether or not
this is okay, and if not, what we should do about it.
We do need to set better general policies for venue selection, and it sounds
like the IAOC is starting to look into that. But I think there's a further
question about this specific meeting location that we should resolve with
some urgency.
Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.