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

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> wrote:
> 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?
This was brought up to explain that it is sometimes necessary to
travel with family, kids & a support person (who may or may not be
family).  It's just a concrete example of it being a necessity.
Thanks, Alia for spelling out all of the reasons that make it a
necessity as I didn't want to :-)  Sure, this doesn't fall into a
reason why two men in a relationship need to bring their child, but
Ted said he had to miss a meeting, so there are likely other reasons
that make it necessary to bring a child and companion or not be able
to attend.

I didn't attend BA.  My son would have needed to come although he was
a bit too young for travel at that point.  He will be with me in
Berlin and Seoul.

Kathleen

> 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


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen