Hi,
Singapore is one of the most popular convention/conference cities in the world
[1]. I doubt that would be the case all people/organizations meeting there
would be considered "insensitive to diversity". Regarding diversity, note that
Singapore is one of the best example you can find of a society where people of
different race, religion and background live peacefully together. That of
course does not solve the LGBT issue, but claiming that Singapore is
anti-diversity is simply wrong. Some reading:
http://www.cooksister.com/2015/02/exploring-singapores-amazing-cultural-diversity.html
Also, the fact that we are having this discussion, where a number of
individuals (including local people from Singapore) have provided input and
information, shows that IETF *IS* doing something :)
Regards,
Christer
[1]
https://skift.com/2013/05/16/the-worlds-most-popular-international-meeting-destinations/
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Rich Kulawiec
Sent: 27 May 2016 20:12
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:34:53AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
It seems to me that, if the IETF does nothing, it could provide
critics of the IETF community to assert that the IETF is insensitive
to issues of diversity and that its role and work should be discounted
because they represent only privileged "majority" interests.
I have reluctantly levelled this criticism because I believe it to be true: the
IETF's fixation on physical meetings means that only the privileged few can
attend: this mechanism selects for those with time (their own or their
employer's), money (their own or their employer's), the ability to travel, the
willingness to travel, the freedom to travel (e.g., ability to leave family and
work and other responsibilities), the willingness to undertake all the risks
associated with travel (legal or otherwise, see current discussion thread), and
so on.
If all the time, money, and effort that has gone into this discussion and this
meeting had been applied to virtualizing meetings, it would have done much more
to broaden participation not just geographically but demographically. And it
would alleviate the need to ever have this conversation again -- instead of
necessitating it repeatedly, something I'm sad to say that I think may become
more rather than less likely as political/legal conditions shift in various
countries.
---rsk