This map reflects the current situation worldwide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage#/media/File:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg
BR,
Jose
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Recentattendees [mailto:recentattendees-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] En
nombre
de
IAOC Chair
Enviado el: jueves, 26 de mayo de 2016 0:08
Para: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
CC: recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Asunto: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
All,
In the IAOC's previous message on this topic we stated that the IAOC
believed that
it is possible to hold a successful meeting in Singapore, and that
meeting in
Singapore is the best option for IETF 100. This statement was based on
several
factors, including evaluation of the site based on the requirements and
process now
being updated and tracked in
draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-
02. In particular, this included consulting with the additional
information sources
identified in the document (specialty travel services, etc), and no
specific issues
were identified as to actual situation in Singapore. More detail on the
information we
have to hand is provided below.
Additional arguments have come forward since our earlier messages,
which leads
us to continue exploring. The IETF Chair has been in touch with the
meeting host,
which is obviously another factor in whether we can/should move. But
we need to
make a decision, so this message contains such information as we have at
present.
We understand that it is difficult to express a view about what to do in
the absence
of known alternatives; but we do not know what the alternatives are now,
and we
need urgently to make a decision, so we are sharing the incomplete
information we
have in the interests of transparency.
Laying this out in a pro/con format:
Not Singapore:
--------------
If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward
positive
impacts include:
. We might have the opportunity to establish the meeting in a
venue that
permits more IETF participants to be comfortable being present and
engaging in a
celebration of this milestone meeting, which is important to some.
If we cancel the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward
negative
impacts include:
. Losing approximately $80,000 (USD) hotel agreement cancellation
fee[1]
. Losing up to approximately $150,000 (USD) in Singapore government
incentives [2]
. Re-prioritizing people time to find a new location (the IAD,
Secretariat staff)
who have full plates for lining up other future meetings; there’s an
unknown amount
of impact in terms of how that impacts *other* meetings (N.B.: some of
this effort is
already underway to obtain the information on possible alternatives and
outline the
pros/cons outlined here).
. Likelihood of IETF 100 in Asia is very small — we have few
prospects and
it takes us months to get all the pieces aligned to get to a signed
contract in Asia
(Singapore took over a year). This would create additional challenges
for our Asian
community members (travel distance, visas).
. Possible shift of dates — to be able to find a venue elsewhere
that works
We have some wiggle room in the point about time to find a new venue
insofar as it
would be easiest to use a North American site that we have used before.
If we
have to consider non-North American, and/or new venues where a site
visit is
needed, effort and cost will be higher.
Note, we should only cancel the Singapore contract once we know that an
alternative venue, that is acceptable to community, is ready to put
under contract.
The cost of cancellation ($80k now) goes up to $192k if we don’t cancel
before
November 2016 (i.e., a few months from now).
We do have to give the hotel a reason for canceling our contract:
Reasons for Cancellation of IETF 100 Meeting in Singapore, and the IAOC
understands that to be:
“ Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men and
preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create
difficulties for same-sex partners and their children; these have
discouraged affected members of our community from participating
at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced
others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them.
Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the
meeting
in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.”
If we stick with Singapore for IETF 100:
----------------------------------------
If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward
positive
impacts include:
. we have a functional meeting venue set for our 3rd meeting of
2017
. meeting site research resources can remain focused on filling in
the
remaining gaps in the 3-4 year timeframe
. we don’t have the financial hit of the cancellation fee, and
possible loss of
government incentives
If we keep the contract we have for Singapore for IETF 100, the onward
negative
impacts include:
. we have a meeting at a location where some community members will
perceive themselves as unwelcome and unsafe, unable to bring family
. possibly fewer attendees than we might otherwise expect — which
is a
consideration for both getting work done and financial reasons
(registration fees per
person)
The above is the practical information as we can best scope it.
If you would like to provide some considered feedback on this matter,
please feel
free to send it to venue-selection(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org . Please note that
mailing
list is a
PUBLICLY archived “drop box” [3].
Leslie Daigle, for the IAOC.
[1] The cancellation fee can be recovered if it is used as a deposit at
a later meeting
with those hotels in Singapore, if it is before 2020; for this
discussion, it’s perhaps
best to consider it gone.
[2] Government business incentives are not unusual; we might obtain
these in
another country hosting IETF 100, but we are late to be expecting
incentives and
opportunities for good deals, and are unlikely to get this in a North
America venue.
[3] The venue-selection mailing list is not open for subscription, and
it is not intended
to archive dynamic conversations (i.e., don’t cc it on an e-mail
discussion thread,
because there will be too many addressees and your mail won’t go
through).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
ldaigle(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Recentattendees mailing list
Recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
