Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
2016-05-25 18:00:10
Fully agree and will add a couple of points after reading IAOC chair message on
this issue:
1) If we decide not to go to Singapore, it seems the possible replacement is US.
2) US must be disqualified as a possible country for IETF venue because the
same reasons as Singapore.
3) Depending on the US elections results this will be even more problematic for
Muslims and others to get visas.
4) Shifting the dates will probably create clash for other people that will not
be able to attend.
So we end up having no venue and incurring in a cost over 230.000 dollars
(including the government funding, which in my opinion need to be added to the
total cancellation cost).
I hope this doesn’t mean that sooner or later it impacts the registration fees,
as this may mean some more participants can’t attend some meetings.
The big question here is then to the IAOC:
Can we have an idea of how many people could not attend Singapore vs how many
people depending on the US elections results will not be able to attend the
venue if relocated to US ?
Are we happy impacting one group or the other depending on our decision, and
considering that most of the time, we have mainly impacted folks requiring
visas to US?
I don’t think we have a way to have a perfect balance here, whatever is the
decision that we take, so for sure, if I’m the one deciding, I will go for the
lower impact to getting the work done. I’m sorry to come always to the same
conclusion and appear as insensible to any specific group. Is not the case,
believe it or not, is a question of being practical and try to get the best
balance. At the end is a matter of “numbers”: how many people we lost with one
choice vs the other.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de Mikael Abrahamsson
<swmike(_at_)swm(_dot_)pp(_dot_)se>
Organización: People's Front Against WWW
Responder a: <swmike(_at_)swm(_dot_)pp(_dot_)se>
Fecha: jueves, 26 de mayo de 2016, 0:37
Para: Ted Hardie <ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
CC: "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
On Wed, 25 May 2016, Ted Hardie wrote:
question. That question is either: are we willing to presume that
certain classes of participants must either skip a meeting or break the
law to attend?
Yes, because we're already doing that and have been for a long time. The
LGBT issue is one important issue, but there are a lot more of also
important issues.
It's my firm opinion (as I have posted in multiple email) that if we
disqualify Singapore on the basis of its on-the-books laws, then we must
also disqualify USA and for a very long time (at least 5+ years before we
might re-evaluate performance) and not have a meeting there in near time.
In a lot of aspects USA is an oppressive nation with a long string of
human-rights violations and arbitrary incarceration (more examples than
the ones Ted Lemon mentioned), with huge amount of gun violence and 1/4 of
the worlds prison population. As mentioned before, stand-your-ground laws
means I can get shot and the shooter go free because the person claimed he
was scared of me.
Again, there are no perfect places to have our meetings. Some people can't
attend some meetings because of $REASON. Skipping Singapore because of
LGBT issues means we're as a consequence discqualifying a huge part of the
world (including some parts of USA that still have opressive laws on its
books (see earlier postings)). Singapore has the chance to be inclusive
for people that have other problems than LGBT issues, that might not be
able to attend meetings in USA because of $REASONS.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(_at_)swm(_dot_)pp(_dot_)se
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, (continued)
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, nalini.elkins
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, nalini.elkins
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, nalini.elkins
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <=
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Margaret Cullen
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ted Lemon
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, nalini.elkins
- Message not available
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, S Moonesamy
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Adam Roach
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, S Moonesamy
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Michael StJohns
|
|
|