Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective

Hi Jordi,

I do not think our debate was useless.

I think it raised awareness of ongoing work on venue selection policy.I'm not sure if we will return to Singapore, I read strong statementsbut no outcome is ready yet.

We (as a community) need to be honest, but our honesty may not come fromour personal feelings and statements, but from agreed and writtenpolicy. We will keep our opinions, but we present them as personalopinions and views.


            Michal

P.S: Hopefully my positions is understandable as my english is still notgood.


On 8.6.2016 20:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

I understand that, but then all our debate has been 99% useless.

At LEAST we need to make sure that the Singapore government know that we go 
there most probably because we have no other choice at this point in time for 
planning another venue, and that we will most probably not return if the laws 
keep the same.

We need to be honest, crystal clear and not hypocrite, not just for the 
Singapore venue, but for other possible venues in the future with similar 
discriminations.

I know many will not agree, just my opinion.

Regards,
Jordi


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de Michal Krsek 
<michal(_at_)krsek(_dot_)cz>
Responder a: <michal(_at_)krsek(_dot_)cz>
Fecha: miércoles, 8 de junio de 2016, 19:02
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
CC: <recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, IETF discussion list 
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective

Hi Jordi,
I do not like to play such as game. My reason is highly practical. Acting the 
way you recommend may create a bigger risk for community of participants we 
want to protect.
If there is any relevant risk, I want to avoid any action that makes the risk 
bigger and if there is no risk I doubt there is something relevant we may 
protest against.
We do no know what reaction we can expect and as I wrote several times, 
different cultures have different behaviors.
M
Dne 8. 6. 2016 16:13 napsal uživatel "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" 
<jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>:

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 !

now.


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.