Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective

I doubt they will be able or willing to help much. “Your country is evil and 
discriminatory. What do you have to say about this?”  Besides, we’d be talking 
to the executive branch, while change tends to come from either the legislative 
or judicial. I also don’t believe it’s the job of the IETF to give “red face” 
to officials of host countries. Making a habit of this will make us about as 
welcome as the globalization protesters were 15 years ago.

Deciding not to meet somewhere is one thing. Extending the agenda of meetings 
from just technical work to technical work plus political protest is not a good 
idea.

The good outcome coming out of this is the decision to crowd-source the vetting 
of possible destinations such as [1]. A message such as this about Singapore 
would have prevented quite a bit of “red face” for the IAOC.

Yoav

[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg97908.html

On 8 Jun 2016, at 5:13 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
<jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> wrote:

Thanks Leslie,

Trying to get a positive side out of this debate, I will suggest the IAOC to 
work with ISOC in order to contact the Singapore government and try to get 
some statement about their future intend with LGTBQ discriminatory laws. 
Probably we need to work together with locals, other organizations, etc.

At this way we could have some “additional” success as outcome for this 
meeting, or otherwise, make sure that the relevant authorities get some kind 
of “red face” during the event, in case there is no progress to change/cancel 
those laws.

Regards,
Jordi


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de IAOC Chair 
<iaoc-chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Responder a: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Fecha: miércoles, 8 de junio de 2016, 15:56
Para: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
CC: <recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: IETF 100, IAOC perspective

This is a follow up to the discussion on holding IETF 100 in Singapore, 
arising from  the issue of the existence of Singapore laws that discriminate 
against LGBTQ people.

Jari, as IETF Chair, is sending a note outlining the forward-looking steps 
from the perspective of IETF community actions, so this note is focused on 
IAOC actions as part of the bigger context.

The IAOC has carefully reviewed feedback from the community, available 
alternative venue options and consulted with the IESG.   We have decided to 
keep the IETF 100 meeting in Singapore, while recognizing that the 
discussion of Singapore’s appropriateness as an IETF meeting site for other 
future meetings is not completed.

We, and we believe the whole IETF, value and respect our LGBTQ participants 
and their families.  It was and is not our intention to make them feel 
unwelcome at IETF 100.  In making this decision, we recognize that it was 
our mistake in missing the issue in the first place.  For that, again, we 
can only apologize.

More detail about the decision process itself is outlined in detail below — 
this message has been difficult to structure in order to both clearly 
deliver the decision and provide detail about how we reached it, without 
burying the former in the important detail.

I do want to thank everyone who has shared their knowledge and perspective 
in the discussion — I appreciate it has been difficult.  And, there are 
significant substantive issues in this discussion that remain unresolved in 
the larger context beyond IETF 100.  We have to move on with continued 
discussion and respectful engagement in order to determine the right answers 
for venues for future IETF meetings.   As part of that, the IAOC remains 
committed to continue to address the larger context by:

1/ Listening.  While it is important for the community to move on from the 
discussion of IETF 100, we in no way think this conversation about what we 
take into account when we do venue selection is completed.

2/ Not viewing this as a precedent for future meeting venue selection.  This 
is a choice for IETF 100, and any future evaluation of Singapore or any 
other venues will be made in the light of whatever the IETF community 
decides are requirements for meeting locations in areas that discriminate 
against any members of our community.

3/ Selecting sites that support the advancement of the IETF mission

4/ Seeking clarity from the community about parameters for venue selection.  
Along with others in the community, we have asked the IETF Chair to 
formalize the MTGVENUE effort into a working group to produce a meeting 
selection BCP with consensus from the community about how to address 
diversity (of our community, of the laws in different parts of the world) as 
part of the selection criteria for meeting venues

5/ Improving our site selection process so that issues of which the 
community may be aware can be brought to light before we have signed 
contracts for a meeting.

In characterizing Singapore as a place where he could not bring his own 
family, because of its laws, Ted Hardie asked at the IETF 95 plenary meeting 
that those who had made the decision to meet in Singapore not bring their 
families, either.  In an earlier message, the IAOC outlined that it has to 
date focused on the suitability of venues/countries for meeting purposes, 
but not explicitly for suitability of meeting attendees bringing companions, 
family members, etc.  That understanding has now obviously evolved, and we 
understand better situations where companions are necessary.  We note Ted's 
request.  Individual participants here will have to make their own decisions 
about how to answer it. As a group we are focusing on making sure we improve 
our processes so that we don’t surprise or undermine any segments of our 
community.

In taking a broader view and reflecting on issues where IAOC announcements 
may have surprised the community (not solely related to IETF 100, nor just 
meeting venues) we also consider that there is merit in a broader review of 
the IASA structure, 10+ years after its inception. At the same time, the 
practical demands of the meeting arrangements discussion and the 
IANA-related work at the IETF Trust need to be satisfied first.  So we plan 
to initiate the evaluation of IASA work before the end of this year.



The IAOC’s decision making process
----------------------------------

We (IAOC) don’t believe the discussion of Singapore’s appropriateness as an 
IETF meeting site (beyond IETF 100) is completed.  There are many strong 
positions: we have heard people say that Singapore’s laws clearly violate 
human rights and it is unconscionable to propose meeting there; we have 
heard people say that our meeting locations are about getting the work done 
and if national politics enter into it the IETF is lost beyond any hope of 
relevancy; people urge that we cannot avoid places where people are 
oppressed without denying the important contributions of those oppressed; 
some worry that we cannot attend to any particular oppression because once 
we start there will be no place left for us to meet.   All of these views 
have arguments in their favour; determining an outcome to the conversation 
is well beyond the scope of the IAOC (we look to the IETF Chair/IESG for 
determination of IETF policy), and they cannot be reconciled to a clear 
pointer to what to do n!

ow.


Against that backdrop, we perceived no obvious answer for where to hold IETF 
100.

Absent a clear answer to the question of suitability of decision criteria 
for/against Singapore, and having reviewed resources to ascertain that 
everyone would be able to travel to Singapore with a reasonable expectation 
of personal safety and respect, the IAOC was guided by a few principles.

First, we obviously wanted to take into account all the feedback we 
received, both on- and off-list.  We could only take it into account, rather 
than reflect it, because we received responses from many different people 
who identified in many different ways, and sometimes those responses were 
diametrically opposed to others.

Second, we did not believe it was practically possible to consider 
alternative dates only 18 months before the meeting was to happen, 
especially because we already have a challenge in ensuring we have adequate 
support for the ordinary contract negotiation that needs to happen; so we 
decided that we had to stick with the dates we had.

Third, we believed that it was necessary that, if we were going to move, we 
would need to move to a site where we had already had an unambiguously 
successful meeting, otherwise we could run the risk of substituting one 
potentially unsuitable venue for another.   With less than 18 months to the 
meeting (practically no time for planning purposes), we focused on specific 
sites we had been to before.  (We were also somewhat worried about the 
financial effects on the IETF of moving the meeting.  We have had throughout 
strong support from our meeting sponsor.  So we believed that these effects 
could have been blunted but not completely eliminated when undertaking a new 
negotiation, since it would be clear to anyone with whom we were negotiating 
that we did not have a lot of options.)

Finally, we determined that that this meeting should take place in Asia if 
at all possible, to honor the 1-1-1* policy in 2017. None of the candidate 
sites in Asia could accommodate us on the dates we already had, making 
Singapore the only Asian venue available.  There were a number of potential 
sites in Europe and North America.

Part of our problem is that the requirements for meeting venue selection 
were sketchily defined, and reasonable people can perceive different 
priorities;  we look forward to successful conclusion of MTGVENUE work to 
remove ambiguity from those requirements.

We acknowledge that much of this could have been avoided if we had attempted 
earlier the strategy of calling out potential venues early, to see whether 
there are problems.  We regret very much that we did not do that, and we 
shall certainly heed that lesson in the future.



Leslie, for the IAOC.