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

If we are going to bring breastfeeding into this, which seems reasonable,
it's worth asking if someone can actually construct a situation in which
the breastfeeding mother would be present with the baby, but the local
government would not recognize _her_ parental rights.   Or is the concern
that if she were incapacitated, the other parent would be unable to take
responsibility for the baby?   I think you have to engage in some pretty
significant contortions to construct this as a problem that the IAOC
absolutely must, out of fairness, solve.   That said, I have no personal
experience in this, so I'm asking, not telling: is there a scenario where
this would actually be a problem?   How likely is this in practice?


On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

> Jordi,
>
> I've never heard any indication that the extremely minimal companion stuff
> (a mailing list and one gathering that the companions pay for) has factored
> into the IAOC venue-selection.
>
> It's always easy to give up - in the abstract - things that don't affect
> you.
>
> In this particular instance, the concern is about keeping legal
> guardianship & medical concerns in a
> country whose laws may not recognize familial ties legal in other
> countries.   There can certainly be personal
> reasons why bringing a child along is necessary - and they don't require
> others' judgement as to whether those
> reasons are "deserving" enough.
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
> jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> wrote:
>
> > +1  to drop companion stuff IF it is increasing the IAOC venue-selection
> > criteria difficulties, and I want to make it clear, even if it affects me
> > personally at any time.
> >
> > Even if is only for simple curiosity (I don’t think our decisions must
> > consider other organizations decisions, but is always good to know), it
> > will be nice to know if venue-selection-criteria of other similar
> > organizations take in consideration possible “difficulties” for
> > companion/familties.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jordi
> >
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de Yoav Nir <
> > ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> > Responder a: <ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> > Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 20:52
> > Para: Melinda Shore <melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> > CC: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> > Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path
> > forward and request for input
> >
> > > > On 24 May 2016, at 9:28 PM, Melinda Shore 
> > > > <melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> > wrote:
> > > > On 5/24/16 10:14 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > > > > Then I guess where I disagree with both you and Melinda is that I
> > don’t
> > > > > think the ability to bring families along should be an important
> > > > > consideration.
> > > > I don't, either, but as long as the IETF does, and provides
> > > > a companion program, I feel quite strongly that IETF travel
> > > > should be equally accessible to all families.  I'd personally
> > > > be good with dropping the companion stuff UNLESS it was done
> > > > specifically to avoid problems with travel to places hostile
> > > > to same-sex partners.
> > > I would be happy with dropping the companion stuff for many reasons. The
> > fact that it adds considerations and criteria to the IAOC’s decision
> > process that already has way too many criteria is just another reason to
> > drop it.
> > > Yoav