Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Hi, Ted. 

> On May 25, 2016, at 20:03, Ted Hardie <ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Benson,
>
> The question I asked the IAOC was  if their "assessment was of only the 
> working meetings or if it included assessing the usual accommodations for 
> families and partners  (or even included an assessment of whether it was 
> suitable for a gala occasion, given the 100th). "
>
> You note:  "The IAOC's Meetings Committee (with the IAD and AMS, et al) have 
> inquired and gotten feedback from a number of sources about whether Singapore 
> was appropriate for IETF 100."  When they solicited that feedback, was it for 
> the working meetings, the usual accommodations for families and partners, or 
> something else?
I apologize that I don't know the answer to your question at this time. But I 
do understand what you're asking, and I think the IAOC will provide a better 
answer in the near future. 

-Benson



> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Benson Schliesser 
> > <bensons(_at_)queuefull(_dot_)net> wrote:
> > Hi, Ted.
> >
> > Ted Hardie wrote:
> > > After the first message on from the IAOC related to this announcement, I
> > > asked a clarifying question of the IAOC on their understanding of what
> > > "Singapore can function as a meeting location for IETF100" entailed (see
> > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg98101.html).  In
> > > Leslie's mail of the 23rd
> > > (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg98176.html), there
> > > was an acknowledgement that the IAOC had not yet responded to this request.
> > >
> > > If this message is meant to contain that response, I do not find it.  I
> > > would like to know if the IAOC has an answer or, if not, when it expects
> > > to provide one.
> > First: I am explicitly /not/ speaking on behalf of the IAOC right now,
> > but I am responding as one IAOC member that is somewhat familiar with
> > the investigation into Singapore. I'm probably speaking a bit "out of
> > turn" here, but I think it's better to be more transparent and answer
> > your question to the extent that I'm able.
> >
> > That being said, I do think the IAOC would have liked to say more about
> > this (very reasonable, IMHO) question. And I think that we may still do
> > so in the near future. But we were not prepared to (officially) do so
> > today.
> >
> > Nevertheless, the IAOC felt that it would be better to provide partial
> > information quickly, about the finances etc. - rather than wait until we
> > had a perfectly complete message - and from this emerged the message
> > that you saw recently from Leslie.
> >
> > Without enumerating the details at this time (most of which I don't know
> > firsthand), I think it's reasonable to let you know that: The IAOC's
> > Meetings Committee (with the IAD and AMS, et al) have inquired and
> > gotten feedback from a number of sources about whether Singapore was
> > appropriate for IETF 100. These sources included (but were not limited
> > to) travel professionals employed at agencies that specialize in travel
> > for clients in the LGBTQI communities, clients of various religious and
> > ethnic backgrounds, etc.
> >
> > The investigation was meant to be aligned with the sort of process that
> > is being documented in draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process.
> >
> > The summary of their findings, as reported to the IAOC, was consistent
> > with the message that "Singapore can function as a meeting location for
> > IETF100". Given the short timeframe to make a decision for IETF 100 it
> > didn't seem useful to postpone the opportunity for community feedback on
> > that conclusion while we investigated further, second-guessed the
> > process, etc.
> >
> > I'm sorry that I don't have a complete set of details, and that this is
> > an imperfect answer. But I hope this helps.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Benson

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature