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

Barry Raveendran Greene <bgreene(_at_)senki(_dot_)org> wrote:
    >> On May 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
    >>
    >> As far as Singapore goes, I don't have a clear opinion.  It is one
    >> meeting - not a pattern

    > Actually, it would not be "one meeting." It would eliminate most of
    > Asia until laws are changed in all these countries. It would also add
    > an element to IETF that projects a POV onto another society. That would
    > politicize a technical organization beyond its current charter.

Barry, you said that you live there half the time.

I think that the anxiety is that we do not hear good things about the state
of the justice system.  (There are many other countries and US states were I
think foreigners would equally anxious).

I think that we are comfortable with Japan (for instance) because we have
some idea of what, worse case, we could expect from the justice and medical
apparatus.

Maybe you could speak to this part.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature