Dear all,
I think it's very good that we are discussing this issue, but I am
afraid that we'll not come to a conclusion unless we (further) develop a
framework and process to facilitate the decision making.
draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02 is a good start but
as this discussion shows, several things have not taken into consideration.
I think it would be good to define additional criteria we would like the
IAOC to consider. Some of the things that have been brought up are:
* the impact the legal environment has on participants
* the impact the social environment has on participants
* the impact the legal environment has on participants partners and/or
children
* the impact the social environment has on participants partners and/or
children
* the signal IETF is sending with holding a meeting in a specific
country (both positive and negative)
* the level of human rights abuses in a selected country (there are no
countries with no violations, but some countries violations are
definitely more grave than others, and some countries are on a more
positive path than others)
I hope this helps.
Best,
Niels
PS In the discussion on access to IETF meetings a thing that gets
discussed less so (AFAIK) are the meeting fees, which are really quite
high if you're not funded by your employer. A programme to wave the fees
for say 10 participants per meeting might be also be a constructive
addition, even though out of the scope of this discussion.
On 05/26/2016 05:30 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Nalini,
(see also answer from Harish)
The questions you list are almost identical to ones that were compiled
based on early discussions on this list and which have been presented
to various parties in Singapore and to folks in same-sex relationships
who travel there frequently. The answers to all questions were, as you
might expect, "no issues." These answers has been countered as
"unhelpful" by some because they do not offer an iron-clad guarantee,
and of course the law in question still is on the books and therefore
there is a perceived risk and uncertainty about its application.
The IAOC or its committees is not set up to offer legal or medical
advice nor even much travel advice beyond basic information. What the
IAOC has done is evaluate the information received and researched
following the announcement in BA.
Speaking only for myself, I believe we can have a successful meeting
in Singapore and that none of the concerns raised will be experienced
by any participant or family for this meeting.
Let me just add that Singapore is one of the top destinations in the
world for conferences and major events of all kinds (F-1 racing being
perhaps the most famous) as well as a major medical destination for
all of Asia. Many large corporations and organizations have offices
in Singapore. I personally do not believe that these organizations
and events would continue to support Singapore (financially) if there
were frequent reports of harassment and discrimination for visitors.
This is not to say that life for the LGBT community in Singapore is
without problems or that the laws shouldn't be changed. But I agree
with you that moving the meeting would not be in the best interest
of the IETF.
Finally, the discussion about what requirements we should apply when
choosing future venues continues and it is ultimately up to the
community to decide what criteria should be applied when selecting
meeting locations. That's still work-in-progress!
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell: +1 415-370-4628
Cell Norway: +47 98 00 26 30
docomo: (090) 3337-9311
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen(_at_)me(_dot_)com
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9