Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:38:30 +0000

On 5/21/16 1:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I agree, but I also agree with Jordi. The main reason for having
> a diversity policy is ethical and moral, but there's also a 'business'
> reason - making use of everybody's talents to the maximum - and that
> surely is the fundamental reason for the whole site selection policy
> anyway. It certainly isn't providing tourist and vacation opportunities
> for family members. So...

There's a reason this discussion has come up around IETF 100, though. While I'm sure IETF participants would be tempted to view this as just another meeting, there's a sense in which it has to be more than that. A lot of us have spent much of our careers working in this organization, and developing professional and personal relationships here. IETF 100 will be a work meeting and not a vacation opportunity, but I think attached to that work meeting should also be a celebration, and one where the personal relationships may matter more than usual.

When I hear that long-time participants, people that have been around longer than me, feel like they need to sit this one out because of where it is happening, or worry about bringing their families to a meeting where we expect that these enduring relationships will be celebrated, that makes me think we as a community need to arrive at a consensus about whether or not this is okay, and if not, what we should do about it.

We do need to set better general policies for venue selection, and it sounds like the IAOC is starting to look into that. But I think there's a further question about this specific meeting location that we should resolve with some urgency.

Jon Peterson

Neustar, Inc.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:02:44 +0100

On 21/05/16 22:38, Peterson, Jon wrote:
>> I agree, but I also agree with Jordi. The main reason for having a
>> diversity policy is ethical and moral, but there's also a
>> 'business' reason - making use of everybody's talents to the
>> maximum - and that surely is the fundamental reason for the whole
>> site selection policy anyway. It certainly isn't providing tourist
>> and vacation opportunities for family members. So...
> 
> 
> There's a reason this discussion has come up around IETF 100, though.
> While I'm sure IETF participants would be tempted to view this as
> just another meeting, there's a sense in which it has to be more than
> that. A lot of us have spent much of our careers working in this
> organization, and developing professional and personal relationships
> here. IETF 100 will be a work meeting and not a vacation opportunity,
> but I think attached to that work meeting should also be a
> celebration, and one where the personal relationships may matter more
> than usual.
> 
> 
> When I hear that long-time participants, people that have been around
> longer than me, feel like they need to sit this one out because of
> where it is happening, or worry about bringing their families to a
> meeting where we expect that these enduring relationships will be
> celebrated, that makes me think we as a community need to arrive at a
> consensus about whether or not this is okay, and if not, what we
> should do about it.
> 
> 
> We do need to set better general policies for venue selection, and it
> sounds like the IAOC is starting to look into that. But I think
> there's a further question about this specific meeting location that
> we should resolve with some urgency.

I think we should celebrate at IETF-128. We can start by
practising at IETF-96 and then have fun every 32 meetings
thereafter. We ought not be ruled by decimalisation:-)

More seriously, I'd have to agree with folks who've said
or implied that deciding what's on the list of criteria
and where is hard, and to be frank, I'm not at all sure
if I'd include family accompaniment and if I did, I don't
know where I'd put it relative to other priorities. So I'd
say it's not unreasonable that the IAOC are similarly
puzzled. We ought not aim for perfection at that level of
granularity I think. (Transparency and effectiveness, yes,
perfection, no.)

That IMO is all the more reason why the IAOC need to move
to a default-open policy to the fullest extent they can,
which I believe is way more than has been the case to date.
I suspect that that opinion perhaps now has the kind of
critical mass that someone might declare it as a rough
consensus of the IETF.

In the meantime, wrt IETF-100, at this point I do think we
ought not make it a mega-celebration of any kind, regardless
of where it's held, but we can finesse that via powers of 2
(as per the above) or in whatever other way works.

I'm ok to leave the decision as to whether to stick with
Singapore or not to the IAOC. I don't think there's any way
we could decide that by consensus. I would just hope that
the IAOC can re-assure the rest of us that they have
explored all avenues before they come to a conclusion. (And
that they can explain those avenues when the time is right.)

S.

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 19:32:00 -0400

> critical mass that someone might declare it as a rough

This seems like the clearest consequence of this debate.  The IAOC's
opacity in choosing this venue and in their subsequent decision-making has
not helped to reassure the community that their input is being taken into
account.

> (as per the above) or in whatever other way works.

Unfortunately, in practice, this is ultimately going to be up to us.  Even
if the IETF doesn't throw a party, one can easily imagine some enthusiastic
sponsor or reporter seeing an opportunity for celebration.

> that they can explain those avenues when the time is right.)

Obviously, this is ultimately a practical decision, and the IAOC will have
to make the call together with the sponsor and other stakeholders.

But as I said at the mic in Yokohama, as long as something is in the
future, there's a possibility for change -- and IETF 100 is still more than
a year out.  In this light, and in light of the feedback received so far,
it seems like the minimum the IAOC owes the community is a thorough
evaluation of what would be required to move the meeting elsewhere, and a
thorough explanation of their basis for concluding that those requirements
will or will not be met.

--Richard

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 23:08:50 -0400

I can't write as eloquently as Ted, Melinda, Jon, and several others have,
but I want to add another voice for trying to move IETF 100 out of
Singapore.

This Singapore law dictates unequal treatment of some active IETF meeting
participants simply for living their normal lives.  Melinda's latest email
says it very well:  "if people in opposite-sex relationship can and do
bring their families, it's pretty clear what label the inability of same-sex
partnered participants to do the same would
​ f​
all under."

​It's in the hands of an authoritarian government to prosecute and maybe
imprison our colleagues for their normal lives, while others in the IETF do
not face this risk. This isn't the same as inconvenience.  ​
It could result in imprisonment of individuals for travel plans that are
exactly the same as other attendees
​. ​
 ​
 I appreciate that the IAOC has resolved to consult experts on travel in
future,
​and try to avoid this happening again, and I ​
thank you for this.
​If there are insurmountable reasons why we must stick to Singapore for
IETF 100, please explain.  ​
Count me as someone who thinks it is worth some cost to make the change.​

Allison

---

From: Harish Pillay <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 16:33:11 +0800

[ ... deleted ...]

> It's in the hands of an authoritarian government to prosecute and maybe
> not face this risk. This isn't the same as inconvenience.

I would like to have specific references to any of those that you refer to
above that was done in Singapore. To the best of my knowledge (and I
live in Singapore), there has never been anyone prosecuted for what you
are saying. Do, please, provide references. I would want to know.

For that matter, and this is something I brought up previously as well,
if there is indeed active prosecution, how would you explain http://pinkdot.sg
happening in Singapore year in, year out? It is a very public event and
no one was prosecuted. Zilch.

Yes, there are people - almost all of them are with a religious agenda -
who make noise from their world view. See [1], [2]. There was a debate
in the Singapore parliament in 2011 abour repealing the section 377A of
the Penal Code (which we inherited from the British) which criminalises
sex between men. The Prime Minister's response is here [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Khong
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1Szv_pC2o
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX_8ar5wnmk

There were concerns expressed by some that if their loved ones
visit Singapore and have some medical issue to be addressed,

Again, to the best of what I know, given the fact that Singapore touts
itself as a medical hub for Asia, if there is ever anyone was denied
access to their loved one just because they are part of a gay relationship,
it would be well know. I have not heard of a single instance of that.

So, please relook your objections to having IETF in Singapore. We are
not prefect. We are, just as most countries, a work-in-progress. But in
this particular issue, it is clear that you have nothing to fear or be concerned
about.

Harish

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 06:09:06 -0800

> no one was prosecuted. Zilch.

I'm unclear on why this is a guarantee that, say, familial rights
will be respected.  There were GLBT pride marches for decades in
the US, Canada, England, and so on before that became the case.

It used to be common in threat analytic frameworks to define the
cost, or risk, of a particular threat as a function of the threat's
likelihood and its impact.  That is to say, a low-likelihood threat
that had potentially devastating impact was identified as a very
high priority despite its unlikely occurrence, specifically
because of the dire consequences if it did happen.

The situation in Singapore is that bigotry has the force of law, and
should a GLBT person run into that rare medical professional who has a
particular animus towards gay people, or a cop who's having a bad day,
or whatever, the law in Singapore does not provide protection against
that bigotry - rather, the law is on the side of the bigot.  To say
that the law is rarely enforced doesn't actually make things better -
it introduces a level of uncertainty that may lead people who don't
deal with these things to think everything's okay but still leaves the
possibility for bad outcomes and high risk for GLBT people, as the
power of the state is behind the bigots.

It seems clear that there are two basic sub-threads here: 1) whether
the situation in Singapore is actually a problem, and 2) what supporting
"diversity" in the IETF means in practice.  I think it's pretty clear
that yes, there's a problem in Singapore in that while it's unlikely
that someone will run into conflict, the consequences if they do are
potentially shattering.  As for what "diversity" means in the IETF,
I dunno.  Pretty much every discussion of gender, GLBT issues, and so
on gets diverted into a discussion of geography.

Melinda

---

From: Harish Pillay <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 22:38:24 +0800

> power of the state is behind the bigots.

The view in the the preceding paragraph is coloured by the lenses of
your personal/national experience - which is very normal.

We do not (at least have not) had situations where the police officer
"on his bad day" did what you suggest. FWIW, and at the risk of
mixing examples, gun ownership is not what we have as a right in
Singapore. Although the police do carry weapons, it is very rarely
ever used. That is my world experience. When I travel to the US and
I see people carrying weapons, how am I supposed to react/respond?
It is very bizarre for me to see gun stores in malls in the US. I know
my two young sons were shocked to see the range of guns on sale
in the store in California. That is not the reality here. I have calibrated
my world view based on those experiences. [disclosure: I have done
my national service and using a weapon is not an alien thing.]

> on gets diverted into a discussion of geography.

I hear your concerns. I hear your anxiety about medical situations.
I cannot guarantee that you won't have an issue, but my gut sense
is that this is being blown way out of proportion. Yes, it is a critical
issue and a big deal for you. All I can say is that you have to decide
for yourself what you should do. I would warmly welcome you to
Singapore, warmly assert that you won't have an issue, but in the
end, it is up to you.

Should the IETF, in making sure that there is "diversity" accommodate
all of the variations of expectations and worldviews of the IETF
community? In an ideal world, yes. We, however, do not live in an
ideal world. We have to make the best of what we have. We have
to weigh the pros and cons and take an action. Else it would be
paralysis and that cannot be a good thing.

Harish

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 10:05:27 -0700

+1 

There becomes a time where things that may have been acceptable 100 years ago are something I am not willing to support. The expression “because it’s 2016” comes to mind. Ultimately the choice of venue location is up to the IETF community - yes - to execute the selection of a hotel it has to be delegated via multiple levels - but in the end, the community needs to be OK with the choice. Are they ? I’m not a fan of the current choice for IETF 100. 

And let me add … there have been many cases where the I* members and other participants, both men and women, needed to be able to bring family members for them to be able to participate. 

> On May 22, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Allison Mankin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I can't write as eloquently as Ted, Melinda, Jon, and several others have, but I want to add another voice for trying to move IETF 100 out of Singapore.
> 
> This Singapore law dictates unequal treatment of some active IETF meeting participants simply for living their normal lives.  Melinda's latest email says it very well:  "if people in opposite-sex relationship can and do bring their families, it's pretty clear what label the inability of same-sex partnered participants to do the same would​ f​all under." 
> 
> ​It's in the hands of an authoritarian government to prosecute and maybe imprison our colleagues for their normal lives, while others in the IETF do not face this risk. This isn't the same as inconvenience.  ​It could result in imprisonment of individuals for travel plans that are exactly the same as other attendees​. ​ ​ I appreciate that the IAOC has resolved to consult experts on travel in future, ​and try to avoid this happening again, and I ​thank you for this.  ​If there are insurmountable reasons why we must stick to Singapore for IETF 100, please explain.  ​Count me as someone who thinks it is worth some cost to make the change.​
> 
> Allison  
> 
> On 21 May 2016 at 17:38, Peterson, Jon <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 19:16:22 +0200

> I’m not a fan of the current choice for IETF 100.

nor am i.  it is true that there is no perfect venue.  but there are
less imperfect venues, and this ain't one.

randy

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 14:09:26 +0200 (CEST)

> I see people carrying weapons, how am I supposed to react/respond?

Let me +1 this here, I am seriously scared for my life whenever I interact 
with law enforcement officers in the US, just from the fact that I know 
they have to interact with armed people all the time and have to be 
cautious that anyone they interact with has a decent likelyhood to be 
armed.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html

If we can't go to Singapore because they happen to have anti-LGBT laws on 
the books, then I suggest we do not have any further meetings in USA at 
all, especially not states that have stand-your-ground laws on their 
books.

As opposed to Singapore where anti-LGBT laws aren't really enforced, in 
USA these kinds of laws seems to be on the rise instead of things getting 
better.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 14:22:56 +0200

+1

Saludos,
Jordi

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 14:25:30 +0200

I will go further:

      The same must apply for any country where death penalty is still applied.

Saludos,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <[email-masked]> en nombre de Jordi Palet Martinez <[email-masked]>
Responder a: Jordi Palet Martinez <[email-masked]>
Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 14:22
Para: <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>**********************************************
>IPv4 is over
>Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>http://www.consulintel.es
>The IPv6 Company
>
>This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>

---

From: Sandoche Balakrichenan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:41:52 +0200

I am not for or against to have IETF 100 in Singapore.

But i would like to post a real issue here.

A PhD student (with an Indian Passport) was quite excited for having a
paper accepted at a Conference in the US.
After having submitted his passport for Visa at the US embassy, they
took it for a background check and they returned it to him after one
month. He could not attend the conference, but he did get the visa after
one month. Just imagine if something happend to his family back in India
during the one month period, he could not travel because the passport
was with the US embassy. The only way to contact the US embassy in Paris
was by phone and everytime you had to give your credit card number, and
they took 18 euros for each call.

Hence, my suggestion is that IETF should take the visa issue also into
account when considering a venue.

Sandoche.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 06:46:26 -0700

>       The same must apply for any country where death penalty is still

So I take it you oppose meeting in Singapore?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore

-Ekr

> >This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:50:40 +0200

In the context:

“IF” we decide not to go to Singapore, then we must avoid going to ANY country that is against human rights, including death penalty. 

Saludos,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 15:46
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <[email-masked]>
CC: IETF discussion list <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>
>
>On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:25 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>I will go further:
>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 07:18:56 -0700

It seems like generally most countries have some human rights issues to
complain about. Could you please indicate which countries we would be free
to visit under your proposed rule?

-Ekr

P.S. You might find https://www.hrw.org/ useful here.

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:50 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> In the context:
>
> “IF” we decide not to go to Singapore, then we must avoid going to ANY
> country that is against human rights, including death penalty.
>
>
> Saludos,
> Jordi
>
>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:28:20 +0200

Do we really want to debate this now and in this list?

My suggestion was looking into “hopefully” we don’t start that way with the first case Singapore, because then I will must take all the points in the “Topics” section of the web site you suggested.

Just to name a few (not in any particular order), which are relevant to countries that we visited already, and some that we visit often:

1) Freedom of Speech
2) Death penalty
3) Torture
4) Justice
5) LGBT rights
6) Free use of guns

As said, if we go that way, we will end up in reducing to the half the number of possible countries from the ones we have already been.

Saludos,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 16:18
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <[email-masked]>
CC: IETF discussion list <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>It seems like generally most countries have some human rights issues to complain about. Could you please indicate which countries we would be free to visit under your proposed rule?
>-Ekr
>
>On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:50 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>In the context:
>

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 09:33:25 -0500

One of the things on your list is completely unlike the others.

#1, #2, #3, #4, and #6 affect everyone equally.

#5 does not.

That's pretty fundamental to this discussion.

/a

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:37:26 +0300

And does that mean it should count more?  Less?

> On 24 May 2016, at 5:33 PM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:45:59 +0200

Exactly!

So should we decide if we want to count to what % of participants it will affect by each possible item?

or

Should we ignore anything that is not related to “getting the work done”? and that means probably only a war or similar global situation can mean selecting a venue or cancelling it?

If we try to stick to any point in the middle ALWAYS there will be even a small group of participants affected with a specific venue.

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:47:48 -0400

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:28 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> My suggestion was looking into “hopefully” we don’t start that way with
> the first case Singapore, because then I will must take all the points in
> the “Topics” section of the web site you suggested.
>
> Just to name a few (not in any particular order), which are relevant to
> countries that we visited already, and some that we visit often:
>
> 1) Freedom of Speech
> 2) Death penalty
> 3) Torture
> 4) Justice
> 5) LGBT rights
> 6) Free use of guns
>
> As said, if we go that way, we will end up in reducing to the half the
> number of possible countries from the ones we have already been.
>

I think EKR's point is that if we don't make any distinction among these,
we'll end up only having virtual meetings because we can't go anywhere.
Human Rights Watch has a page on every major country highlighting abuses
there.

We need to make smart distinction here.  Yes, issues of justice and torture
are very important.  But they are pretty unlikely to affect an IETF meeting.

--Richard

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:51:01 -0400

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 24, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:28 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think EKR's point is that if we don't make any distinction among these, we'll end up only having virtual meetings because we can't go anywhere.  Human Rights Watch has a page on every major country highlighting abuses there.

I think more to the point, it's about creating an inclusive 'place' to get work done.  Only one was a matter of inclusivity.

Kathleen 

> 
> We need to make smart distinction here.  Yes, issues of justice and torture are very important.  But they are pretty unlikely to affect an IETF meeting.
> 
> --Richard
> 
>  
>> 
>> Saludos,
>> Jordi
>> 
>>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:29:32 +0200

Folks,

I don’t want to comment on the specific issues brought up by the most recent emails. But I think it is of course necessary to consider things that affect the ability to enter, safety (possibly including usual human activities that people do outside meetings anyway, families travelling along), etc. Those are factors that have a direct effect on attendees. Some of these issues may affect parts of the community, others may affect the whole community. But all of those are very valid concerns. We do not have an ability to avoid _all_ issues, but we definitely should try our best.

However, there is another category of issue that I would classify as in-principle issues. I might for instance have some opinions about a country’s policies or practices, but me visiting that country am reasonably not affected by those policies. I hope when we evaluate meetings for the practical can-meet aspect (with everything that is implied by that), not for the long list of in-principle issues.

Jari

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:18:11 -0500

This shouldn't be that hard to think about. Would you have a greater 
objection to the IETF selecting (1) a locale that allows private citizen 
ownership of guns or (2) a country that refuses to recognize Israeli 
passports?

/a

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 18:37:37 +0200

On 5/24/16 6:18 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> objection to the IETF selecting (1) a locale that allows private
> citizen ownership of guns or (2) a country that refuses to recognize
> Israeli passports?

False choice.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:08:10 -0500

>> citizen ownership of guns or (2) a country that refuses to recognize

The question on the table in this sub-thread is: considering 
governmental policies that some subset of participants find 
objectionable (but which don't otherwise preclude meeting there), 
whether nondiscriminatory ones pose a greater or lesser issue for IETF 
venue selection than discriminatory ones. All I've done above is shift 
the class being targeted.

If you want to take this logic at a slower pace, start with Jordi's 
original message listing six issues, except replace "LGBT Rights" with 
"Recognition of Israeli passports"; follow it with my response pointing 
out that #5 is different than the others; and then ask Yoav's question. 
How do you respond?

/a

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 20:26:57 +0300

You do realize that (1) includes most EU countries?

Anyway, (2) would exclude me and about a dozen of our regulars. Gun ownership by citizens does not exclude anyone. Failure by a state to recognize my sister’s marriage does not exclude her from traveling there if that was necessary for her work. 

I do not doubt that it sucks to be a gay or bisexual male living in Singapore. Spending a week there for work should be fine.

> On 24 May 2016, at 7:18 PM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> This shouldn't be that hard to think about. Would you have a greater objection to the IETF selecting (1) a locale that allows private citizen ownership of guns or (2) a country that refuses to recognize Israeli passports?
> 
> /a
>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 09:37:46 -0800

On 5/24/16 9:26 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> I do not doubt that it sucks to be a gay or bisexual male living in
> Singapore. Spending a week there for work should be fine.

I think it's hard to understand a problem that you haven't
lived.  One of the things that happens when you live under
conditions of legal (or not) discrimination is that you
learn to negotiate it, build private safe spaces, and so on.
You understand the constraints within which you need to
operate.  Visitors are actually at a disadvantage in that
regard.

Nobody here has been able to answer questions about what
would happen if someone in Ted's family were to need to be
hospitalized while visiting Singapore, what would happen if
something happened involving the police (say, a mugging or
a traffic accident), and so on.  The assurances we've gotten
haven't been reassuring at all, as they've tended to take
the form of hearsay.  "I'm sure it would be fine" does not
actually answer any questions.  "Those laws are not enforced"
does not address family legal relationships, and so on.

Melinda

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 19:39:55 +0200

My point, Adam, is that the choice is really who draws the short straw,
for surely it will be drawn.

On 5/24/16 7:08 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> "Recognition of Israeli passports"; follow it with my response
> pointing out that #5 is different than the others; and then ask Yoav's
> question. How do you respond?
>
> /a
>
>

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:44:57 -0500

On 5/24/16 12:26, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Anyway, (2) would exclude me and about a dozen of our regulars. Gun ownership by citizens does not exclude anyone.

Right, and that's exactly my point. Jari's formulation here is, I think, 
a good one: "I might for instance have some opinions about a country’s 
policies or practices, but me visiting that country am reasonably not 
affected by those policies. I hope when we evaluate meetings for the 
practical can-meet aspect (with everything that is implied by that), not 
for the long list of in-principle issues."

> I do not doubt that it sucks to be a gay or bisexual male living in Singapore. Spending a week there for work should be fine.

I'll again agree with Jari's formulation, adding emphasis to the final 
three cited words: "I think it is of course necessary to consider things 
that affect the ability to enter, safety (possibly including usual human 
activities that people do outside meetings anyway, *families travelling 
along*)".

/a

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 20:07:27 +0200

Hi Melinda,

> does not address family legal relationships, and so on.

On this point I agree 100%.  Ted's question has gone unanswered.  But if
that is our criteria, it seems we are eliminating almost all of Asia[1],
not that we had a lot of venues to choose from to begin with.  THAT is
what makes this problem so knotty.  I've stated this several times, but
I think I failed to ask the relevant question: given that situation and
the 1-1-1* policy, what would you have the IAOC do?

Eliot
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 21:14:40 +0300

On 24 May 2016, at 8:44 PM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'll again agree with Jari's formulation, adding emphasis to the final three cited words: "I think it is of course necessary to consider things that affect the ability to enter, safety (possibly including usual human activities that people do outside meetings anyway, families travelling along)”.

Then I guess where I disagree with both you and Melinda is that I don’t think the ability to bring families along should be an important consideration. This may be because I have never traveled to work with family, nor do I consider them coming as anything other than a vacation (for them - I would be stuck in meetings). I am somewhat uncomfortable with idea of a companion program, but that’s a subject for a different thread.

Yes, there are exceptional cases such as when people need to travel with companions due to disability. Traveling with family beyond that is a choice. Assuming the worst about Singapore, it’s not fair that I have that choice, while Ted may feel that he does not. But if we can conclude that our participants themselves face no risk of harm or discrimination, I don’t think that should be a consideration.

Yoav

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:28:49 -0800

On 5/24/16 10:14 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Then I guess where I disagree with both you and Melinda is that I don’t
> think the ability to bring families along should be an important
> consideration.

I don't, either, but as long as the IETF does, and provides
a companion program, I feel quite strongly that IETF travel
should be equally accessible to all families.  I'd personally
be good with dropping the companion stuff UNLESS it was done
specifically to avoid problems with travel to places hostile
to same-sex partners.  That would be the point at which the
IETF would cross the line to becoming actively discriminatory.

In general I think that the companion program tends to inflate
the significance of meeting attendance, or at least the appearance
of significance, and I'd really like to see us get better about
de-emphasizing physical meetings.

Melinda

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 21:52:40 +0300

> On 24 May 2016, at 9:28 PM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> to same-sex partners.

I would be happy with dropping the companion stuff for many reasons. The fact that it adds considerations and criteria to the IAOC’s decision process that already has way too many criteria is just another reason to drop it. 

Yoav

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 14:56:02 -0400

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Yoav Nir <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I'll again agree with Jari's formulation, adding emphasis to the final three
> cited words: "I think it is of course necessary to consider things that
> affect the ability to enter, safety (possibly including usual human
> activities that people do outside meetings anyway, families travelling
> along)”.
>
>
> consideration. This may be because I have never traveled to work with
> family, nor do I consider them coming as anything other than a vacation (for
> them - I would be stuck in meetings). I am somewhat uncomfortable with idea
> of a companion program, but that’s a subject for a different thread.
>
> Yes, there are exceptional cases such as when people need to travel with
> companions due to disability. Traveling with family beyond that is a choice.

Breastfeeding is another instance where brining your family is
important.  8 days is just too long to be away from a baby
breastfeeding.  It's a lot of milk to pump and send back or have
stocked up in advance.  There are some instances where having a
support person and child are essential to some attendees being able to
participate.  I've said this already and Ted made this argument
already.  There may be other situations, I don't know as I haven't run
into them yet.

Kathleen

> Assuming the worst about Singapore, it’s not fair that I have that choice,
> while Ted may feel that he does not. But if we can conclude that our
> participants themselves face no risk of harm or discrimination, I don’t
> think that should be a consideration.
>
> Yoav
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 21:04:01 +0200

+1  to drop companion stuff IF it is increasing the IAOC venue-selection criteria difficulties, and I want to make it clear, even if it affects me personally at any time.

Even if is only for simple curiosity (I don’t think our decisions must consider other organizations decisions, but is always good to know), it will be nice to know if venue-selection-criteria of other similar organizations take in consideration possible “difficulties” for companion/familties.

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:05:49 -0400

I am another who traveled bringing my family with me - all 3 babies over
the years - because,
as Kathleen says, the logistics, maintaining supply (it's a feedback loop),
and time to pump
vs. nurse is high.  Incidentally, avoiding painful medical conditions
(mastitis for instance) is
another strong reason to avoid long absences; for those who are nursing,
this is basically
medical necessity.

Until my oldest was school-aged, that meant bringing the whole family
because it is really really hard to find someone trustworthy and local to
foreign countries to take
care of a baby/toddler for 14-16 hours a day.

As for the companion program, how many who are discussing it have brought
someone along
to an IETF?  It is a matter of convenience to make it easier for companions
to meet each other
and make plans to do stuff.  To attend the companion's reception costs
money for that companion.
Mailing lists are not expensive.  I view it as an easy courtesy.

There are certainly circumstances where an IETFer needs to bring others,
whether adult or chlid,
so that the IETFer can get things done.

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> three

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:10:39 -0800

On 5/24/16 11:05 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> I am another who traveled bringing my family with me - all 3 babies
> over the years - because, as Kathleen says, the logistics,
> maintaining supply (it's a feedback loop), and time to pump vs. nurse
> is high.  Incidentally, avoiding painful medical conditions (mastitis
> for instance) is another strong reason to avoid long absences; for
> those who are nursing, this is basically medical necessity.

Okay, fair enough.  This discussion is a good example of why
the organization needs input from a diversity of participants.

Melinda

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:12:10 -0400

Jordi,

I've never heard any indication that the extremely minimal companion stuff
(a mailing list and one gathering that the companions pay for) has factored
into the IAOC venue-selection.

It's always easy to give up - in the abstract - things that don't affect
you.

In this particular instance, the concern is about keeping legal
guardianship & medical concerns in a
country whose laws may not recognize familial ties legal in other
countries.   There can certainly be personal
reasons why bringing a child along is necessary - and they don't require
others' judgement as to whether those
reasons are "deserving" enough.

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> +1  to drop companion stuff IF it is increasing the IAOC venue-selection
> criteria difficulties, and I want to make it clear, even if it affects me
> personally at any time.
>
> Even if is only for simple curiosity (I don’t think our decisions must
> consider other organizations decisions, but is always good to know), it
> will be nice to know if venue-selection-criteria of other similar
> organizations take in consideration possible “difficulties” for
> companion/familties.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> >I would be happy with dropping the companion stuff for many reasons. The
> fact that it adds considerations and criteria to the IAOC’s decision
> process that already has way too many criteria is just another reason to
> drop it.
> >
> >Yoav
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:35:09 -0700

Hi Sandoche,

I labeled my reply as off-topic as it is not directly related to the topic.

>But i would like to post a real issue here.

[snip]

>account when considering a venue.

Please see Slide 25 at 
https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IAOC-Overview-IETF86-Final.pdf  I 
don't know how the visa issue is handled in practice as I am not an 
IAOC member.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:41:19 -0400

If we are going to bring breastfeeding into this, which seems reasonable,
it's worth asking if someone can actually construct a situation in which
the breastfeeding mother would be present with the baby, but the local
government would not recognize _her_ parental rights.   Or is the concern
that if she were incapacitated, the other parent would be unable to take
responsibility for the baby?   I think you have to engage in some pretty
significant contortions to construct this as a problem that the IAOC
absolutely must, out of fairness, solve.   That said, I have no personal
experience in this, so I'm asking, not telling: is there a scenario where
this would actually be a problem?   How likely is this in practice?

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:48:46 -0800

On 5/24/16 11:41 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> If we are going to bring breastfeeding into this, which seems
> reasonable, it's worth asking if someone can actually construct a
> situation in which the breastfeeding mother would be present with the
> baby, but the local government would not recognize _her_ parental
> rights.

We looped down a side-road.  Apparently there's some feeling
that the way to solve the problem with familial rights in same-
sex families not being recognized in Singapore is to simply
eliminate the companion program (a very Kim Davis solution).
I said I don't like the companion program because I think it
tends to over-emphasize the role of meetings in our processes.
Alia answered with a concrete example of why the companion program
is useful and should be continued.  I don't think anybody
was arguing that there's a legal issue related to parental
rights around breastfeeding (although I understand that
there's a ton of legal issues, and local variability in
those legal issues, around public breastfeeding).

Melinda

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:58:04 -0400

Hi Ted,

> this would actually be a problem?   How likely is this in practice?

My point is not that breastfeeding mothers need specific accommodations by
the IAOC - but rather that there absolutely are reasons that a parent may
need to bring a child along so that the parent can constructively work.
This is a common one.  There are others - even as trivial as being a single
parent.

Depending upon adoption issues, it's certainly possibly that a woman may be
nursing a baby to whom she is not the bio-mom. There could certainly be
concern about the other parent not being able to take responsibility for
the baby.

My email isn't a "don't forget this special case" to the IAOC - but rather
to those cheerfully giving up their right to bring
family along because they haven't personally experienced the need to do so
or the complex gyrations that causes.

There are certainly conferences that help by providing information about
chlidcare (frequently available through the hotel or such) or even
organizing joint childcare.  Strangely enough, that helps increase the
participation of those with young children and childcare responsibilities
(frequently women).  I am not requesting that the IAOC do so - though
certainly gathering information about childcare one time for use by many
would be helpful.

Regards,
Alia

>> I've never heard any indication that the extremely minimal companion
>> stuff (a mailing list and one gathering that the companions pay for) has
>> factored into the IAOC venue-selection.
>>
>>> >I would be happy with dropping the companion stuff for many reasons.
>>> The fact that it adds considerations and criteria to the IAOC’s decision

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:57:48 -0400

Hm, okay, thanks for walking me through that.

I think the bottom line is that for people who find IETF barely affordable,
the concern about being able to bring family along is a bit of a first
world problem.   I don't really buy the idea that the IETF shouldn't do
anything to accommodate those people who are able to bring family along, if
doing so is easy, but it would be absurd for that to be a stronger
motivating factor in choosing venues than the ability of likely attendees
to get visas, for example.

ISTM that the number of people meaningfully negatively affected by bringing
IETF to Singapore is likely quite a bit smaller than the number of people
positively affected by bringing IETF to Singapore.   Has anybody done that
comparison?

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:02:23 -0400

> certainly gathering information about childcare one time for use by many

TBH, this seems much more generally useful to me than optimizing for the
case of bringing the family along as support for the same thing, which
seems like a fairly heavy lift for many likely IETF participants in
comparison.

The case of a nursing adoptive mother seems like a real corner case in the
sense that I am not aware of any countries the IETF is likely to ever go to
that would not recognize the nursing mother's parental rights.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:06:32 -0800

On 5/24/16 11:57 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> ISTM that the number of people meaningfully negatively affected by
> bringing IETF to Singapore is likely quite a bit smaller than the number
> of people positively affected by bringing IETF to Singapore.

Well, there's some number of us who will not be going
to Singapore as a matter of personal conscience, aside
from those whose families may be at increased risk.
But either way, these seems like an odd way to deal with
problems around diversity and inclusion, and I hope that
people are asking themselves if they'd frame problems
around religious bias, race, and so on in quite the same way.

And for the record, given the difficulties we've had getting
visas for Chinese participants to come into the US, I'm fine
with not meeting in the US until this is resolved.  I'd like
to think that we're not chucking some participants overboard
because assuring their ability to participate is
inconvenient and takes some effort.

Melinda

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:10:18 -0400

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> it's worth asking if someone can actually construct a situation in which the
> breastfeeding mother would be present with the baby, but the local

This was brought up to explain that it is sometimes necessary to
travel with family, kids & a support person (who may or may not be
family).  It's just a concrete example of it being a necessity.
Thanks, Alia for spelling out all of the reasons that make it a
necessity as I didn't want to :-)  Sure, this doesn't fall into a
reason why two men in a relationship need to bring their child, but
Ted said he had to miss a meeting, so there are likely other reasons
that make it necessary to bring a child and companion or not be able
to attend.

I didn't attend BA.  My son would have needed to come although he was
a bit too young for travel at that point.  He will be with me in
Berlin and Seoul.

Kathleen

>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>> consider other organizations decisions, but is always good to know), it will
>>> be nice to know if venue-selection-criteria of other similar organizations
>>> take in consideration possible “difficulties” for companion/familties.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jordi
>>>
>>>
>>> > fact that it adds considerations and criteria to the IAOC’s decision process
>>> > that already has way too many criteria is just another reason to drop it.
>>> >
>>> >Yoav
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:14:13 -0400

> seems like a fairly heavy lift for many likely IETF participants in

Yes - and I have requested it a few times.  I don't need it now and so feel
it is easier to request.  That said, it is a way of being more opening -
and the IAOC is juggling quite a few other things right now.

> that would not recognize the nursing mother's parental rights.

LBGT - two women who have both adopted the child?   A transgender man who
is nursing?  But, as Melinda pointed out, this is a rat-hole.

The key point is that there are reasons that folks spend significant money
to bring along a child and caregiver - and those shouldn't be glibly
dismissed as "playing tourist or taking a vacation".

To me, the question around Singapore is what are the realities of
enforcement and are we playing a double-standard between what many of us
sadly just accept in the US versus what is on the books in Singapore.  I've
certainly read of far too many horror stories of families traveling in the
US who ran into medical emergencies.

Regards,
Alia

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:31:05 -0400

> around religious bias, race, and so on in quite the same way.

I don't think it's that clear-cut.   I have no idea what my conscientious
objection to going would be, although I do accept that you believe that
there is such an objection that you feel the need to act on.

>From my perspective we've heard from several people who would in principle
be affected by this who are willing to go to Singapore, and we have heard
from at least one person _living in Singapore_ who is in principle affected
by this.   Are his needs less important than the needs of other IETF
attendees?   How do we make that determination?

We spent many years holding IETFs in a country, and in states in that
country, that did not recognize LGBT rights, and nobody at that time ever
proposed not holding IETFs in that country (the U.S.).   We held many, many
IETFs in that country.   What has changed from then to now?

In my personal opinion, what has changed is that there are now many fewer
potential venues where LGBT families would have to worry.   This is a
wonderful, positive change.   The number of potential IETF venues where
such worries are an issue has substantially dropped.   I get that because
of that Singapore now feels like a backslide, but I think we should all
(not just you, Melinda) ask ourselves how we would have felt if for the
entire time from IETF 1 to IETF ~93 the U.S. were not in consideration as a
potential country in which to hold IETFs.  This was also true of Europe.

It is only in the past three years that the IAOC has even really had a
meaningful choice about whether to go to a country that recognized LGBT
marital rights.   I suspect that Singapore came into consideration prior to
that happy event.   So while I get that there are matters of principle at
stake here, it's easy to imagine that IETF participants in Asia are a bit
surprised by this.   As an example, while I think Japan is pretty positive
toward LGBT rights, there is no parity under law there for LGBT
relationships as compared to cis-het relationships.

I guess this could all come down to a rationalization.   My opinion is that
canceling IETF 100 in Singapore would be equivalent to having cancelled
IETF 72 for the same reason if LGBT marital rights had been established in
law in 2007 instead of in 2015.   So it might be worth considering whether
we would have done that.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:42:41 -0800

On 5/24/16 12:31 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> marital rights.

The problem with Singapore is not that marital/parental rights
are not recognized.  The problem is that Singapore has multiple
laws that criminalize same-sex relationships between men and
that their Supreme Court upheld those laws less than two years
ago.  This is, to my knowledge, unique among countries where
the IETF has met.  If the situation in Singapore is, in fact,
hunky-dory, they have the option of making that clear by
getting rid of those laws.

Nobody has been able to provide any concrete assurances
that a meeting participant's familial and parental rights would be
protected while visiting Singapore, Barry Greene's giggles
notwithstanding.  The risks are unknown and the consequences are
potentially quite serious.

Melinda

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:06:42 -0400

Hm, okay, perhaps people were being delicate.   The ruling to which you are
referring is not about same-sex relationships.   It is about same-sex
relations in a semi-public place.  I agree that this is a valid argument
against going to Singapore, and certainly against Singapore being eligible
for consideration for future IETFs.

In Singapore's defense, police shootings are much rarer there than in the
U.S.   I do not know what the relative risks are, though.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 23:26:22 +0200

Hi Alia,

The fact that we are getting up to this debate, means that the IAOC is taking in consideration the issue. Otherwise, the immediate response will have been “sorry, we sympathize with your family issue, but at no means can that situation be taken in consideration for even a simple study to move the meeting somewhere else”. I may be wrong, of course, but is what it looks like.

Nothing personal, believe me, but I must say that you don’t know at all if this affects me or not, you don’t know my personal/familiar circumstances and if doing the meeting in Singapore or an alternative place is better for me and my circumstances. I just take it from another principle. I’m there to work and either I go to the meeting for work (and prioritize the work), or if I’ve a familiar problem and is in clash with my work, tell my employer and find an alternative solution instead of going there. What I can’t definitively do is to ask for a venue reconsideration, unless the problem affecting me is also affecting a big proportion of the rest of the attendees.

I fully respect inclusion and minorities. I don’t like democracy in the sense that majority always win. Isn’t like that, but when we have a new fact in the table, we should consider it for the future, and balance it with the rest of the possible considerations from every other minority, and again, put on top the maximum priority of the reason for the meetings: Getting the work done for as much people as we can.

Reading other emails from Ted, he already had a few examples, that reflect what I’ve in mind, so I’m not going to repeat them.

Saludos,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <[email-masked]> en nombre de Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 21:12
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <[email-masked]>
CC: IETF Discussion Mailing List <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>Jordi,
>I've never heard any indication that the extremely minimal companion stuff (a mailing list and one gathering that the companions pay for) has factored into the IAOC venue-selection.
>
>It's always easy to give up - in the abstract - things that don't affect you.
>
>In this particular instance, the concern is about keeping legal guardianship & medical concerns in a
>country whose laws may not recognize familial ties legal in other countries.   There can certainly be personal 
>reasons why bringing a child along is necessary - and they don't require others' judgement as to whether those
>On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:48:53 -0400

Hi Jordi,

You are completely right that I don't know your personal circumstances.  I
do hear you implying that those with circumstances that might require
bringing their families or other assistance should figure out ways to
participate in the IETF that don't involve going to the problematic
meetings.  I feel that discourages particular sets of people from
participating in the physical meetings.

As far as Singapore goes, I don't have a clear opinion.   It is one meeting
- not a pattern.  All the information from folks on the ground indicates
that the risk of this being an issue is extremely low - but also quite
critical if it did become an issue.  Ted's original ask at the plenary was
that others not bring their families.  Indeed - I don't intend to, but I
have that luxury this time.

I am concerned that we are pulling apart based on nuanced opinions of a
rather complex situation with insufficient information.
One of the strengths of the IETF is that we come from different cultures
and backgrounds.  When we focus on how to make the Internet work better for
everyone and many different circumstances, this diversity strengthens us.
When we pick apart each others' perspectives and feel the need to defend
our viewpoints and culture as being open enough, I don't find it helpful.

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:26 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Alia,
>
> The fact that we are getting up to this debate, means that the IAOC is
> taking in consideration the issue. Otherwise, the immediate response will
> have been “sorry, we sympathize with your family issue, but at no means can
> that situation be taken in consideration for even a simple study to move
> the meeting somewhere else”. I may be wrong, of course, but is what it
> looks like.
>
> Nothing personal, believe me, but I must say that you don’t know at all if
> this affects me or not, you don’t know my personal/familiar circumstances
> and if doing the meeting in Singapore or an alternative place is better for
> me and my circumstances. I just take it from another principle. I’m there
> to work and either I go to the meeting for work (and prioritize the work),
> or if I’ve a familiar problem and is in clash with my work, tell my
> employer and find an alternative solution instead of going there. What I
> can’t definitively do is to ask for a venue reconsideration, unless the
> problem affecting me is also affecting a big proportion of the rest of the
> attendees.
>
> I fully respect inclusion and minorities. I don’t like democracy in the
> sense that majority always win. Isn’t like that, but when we have a new
> fact in the table, we should consider it for the future, and balance it
> with the rest of the possible considerations from every other minority, and
> again, put on top the maximum priority of the reason for the meetings:
> Getting the work done for as much people as we can.
>
> Reading other emails from Ted, he already had a few examples, that reflect
> what I’ve in mind, so I’m not going to repeat them.
>
> Saludos,
> Jordi
>
>

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:19:20 +0200 (CEST)

> rather complex situation with insufficient information.

It would be interesting to understand how many people we would enable to 
come to Singapore that would not make it to an alternative location (I 
don't know which one this might be).

Sometimes there are hard choices to be made, potentially there might be 30 
people that would be able to attend the meeting in Singapore who could not 
make it to Japan or Australia (just guessing here, and making up 
locations).

>From reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Japan it 
seems the same problems regarding next-of-kin exists in Japan.

So do we stay out of most of Asia because of LGBT rights issues? I checked 
for instance Thailand as well 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Thailand) and they have the 
same next-of-kin problem (from what I understood). We can't go to India, 
Malaysia or Indonesia either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_South_Korea seems to indicate 
same next-of-kin problem. So if next-of-kin protection for LGBT couples is 
a hard requirement, then we'd better find a new place for IETF97. Doesn't 
leave much time.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:20:48 +0200

Be sure that at no means I want to discourage anyone to participate in the IETF meetings, or giving less priority to few than majorities, but in the scope of the work itself.

I guess the main problem is our disagreement regarding that a participant of the IETF has no other choice than
1) Go to a meeting and bring his family
vs
2) Not going to the meeting or not bringing his family.

I said this already a few messages ago. If instead of the IETF is a business meeting that your boss tell you need to go (at least in my country, and here comes what you said about different cultures), you will have no choice:
a) Go there
b) You’re fired, maybe unless a colleague can make it for you and your boss accept it
But definitively, you will not be able to argue in front of a court to defend your job that you can’t go there because your family need to go there with you and that country don’t allow it.

I know seems quite simplistic approach, but what I’m saying is that as much as we can we should support families to go to IETF meetings as much as possible, but not necessarily change our decisions (even less if already taken and engaged in contracts), If in some cases that’s not feasible/convenient, unless the situation affects a big enough group that will mean the work can’t be done.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <[email-masked]> en nombre de Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 23:48
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <[email-masked]>
CC: IETF Discussion Mailing List <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>Hi Jordi,
>You are completely right that I don't know your personal circumstances.  I do hear you implying that those with circumstances that might require bringing their families or other assistance should figure out ways to participate in the IETF that don't involve going to the problematic meetings.  I feel that discourages particular sets of people from participating in the physical meetings.
>
>As far as Singapore goes, I don't have a clear opinion.   It is one meeting - not a pattern.  All the information from folks on the ground indicates that the risk of this being an issue is extremely low - but also quite critical if it did become an issue.  Ted's original ask at the plenary was that others not bring their families.  Indeed - I don't intend to, but I have that luxury this time.
>
>I am concerned that we are pulling apart based on nuanced opinions of a rather complex situation with insufficient information.
>One of the strengths of the IETF is that we come from different cultures and backgrounds.  When we focus on how to make the Internet work better for everyone and many different circumstances, this diversity strengthens us.  When we pick apart each others' perspectives and feel the need to defend our viewpoints and culture as being open enough, I don't find it helpful.
>
>Regards,
>Alia
>
>
>
>On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:26 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>Hi Alia,
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 23:43:57 +0100

On 24/05/16 22:48, Alia Atlas wrote:
> critical if it did become an issue.

That about sums it up for me too.

Purely related to IETF-100:

If there're indications that practical problems could occur
with a non-negligible probability, I'd be for moving the meeting.

If we find good evidence that even in cases folks are concerned
about (e.g. hospitalisation) there have been cases of male couples
not having issues with that, then I'd be fine with keeping IETF-100
in Singapore.

I'd be surprised if we could get good evidence for either of the
above. If we can, great, but I'd not count on it. At this point
I think anecdote or absence of evidence isn't likely to be very
useful in terms of convincing folks.

That leaves me figuring that I'm ok to trust the IAOC to make
the best call they can on this one. I hope they do so in as open
a manner as possible. If they choose to not move the meeting, and
on the basis of what I know so far, I'd likely go (assuming I have
funding at that point). The same is true if they do move it.

I do think that this discussion has shown convincingly that we
ought in future consider additional aspects of inclusiveness,
including family accompaniment, as good reasons have been offered
for that. (That's in addition to the other issues about general
transparency etc.)

S.

---

From: Barry Raveendran Greene <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:45:59 -0700

> On May 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> As far as Singapore goes, I don't have a clear opinion.   It is one meeting - not a pattern

Actually, it would not be "one meeting." It would eliminate most of Asia until laws are changed in all these countries. It would also add an element to IETF that projects a POV onto another society. That would politicize a technical organization beyond its current charter.

---

From: Margaret Cullen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 18:56:59 -0400

I am fairly disturbed with where this discussion has ended up, because as I understand it we are saying “Men having sex with other men is not actually necessary for the work of the IETF, so it is okay to go to a country that criminalizes it”.  Would it have been okay to hold a meeting in apartheid South Africa if we’d been able to visas for black colleagues affording them the privileges of white people, so that they could gather?  Would we hold a meeting in a country where women can't own property, drive, or go out in public unaccompanied, because those things are not technically required in order to do the work of the IETF?  

How much would it cost the IETF to rebook IETF 100 at this point?  There must be a dollar amount involved, but I haven’t seen it (did I miss something?).   I think the community should assess whether or not it is worth that cost to move the meeting to another location.  Maybe some of us would be willing to contribute to a special fund to offset the cancellation costs?

Margaret

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 20:08:53 -0400

Margaret, this is a really hard issue to talk about, and I've probably made
a hash of it and offended everybody, for which I am sorry.   But the reason
I went a bit Sea Lion on it is that I am having trouble articulating a
principle that differentiates this particular governmental human rights
abuse, of which one recent example exists, from various other government
abuses committed by governments of countries in which we do not consider it
problematic to hold future IETF meetings.

---

From: Andrew Allen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:21:18 +0000

Given events over the past 15 years in New York, Washington, Madrid, London, Sydney, Paris, Brussels,........ the possibility always exists of someone experiencing a devastating impact when engaging in international travel. The key thing is whether the risk of being affected by such an event poses a significant risk.

Are there any foreign nationals, currently or recently (over the past 10 years) jailed in Singapore for the offences of concern? If not then I would suggest that such a risk is minimal and much less than other potential devastating risks of international travel. 

According to Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory) which I expect is pretty accurately maintained by members of the LGBT community (at time of writing the last update was 3 days ago):
 - Singapore: Penalty: up to 2 years prison sentence (Not enforced since 1999)

IMHO not enforced since 1999 (if accurate) does not represent a significant risk. I think it should not be too difficult for IETF to confirm the actual situation as this must be a matter of public record.

The additional concerns raised about family hospital visitation rights, etc, because of lack of recognition of same sex marriage potentially apply to just about every country in Asia (including Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea where IETF has had or has scheduled meetings). The Netherlands was the first country in the world to recognize same sex marriage as recently as 2001 and IETF has had successful meetings all over the world prior to 2001 and since then in many countries where same-sex marriage was not recognized at the time without such a concern being raised. If we recognize also this concern as a total bar to locations then we cannot meet almost anywhere in Asia for the foreseeable future. Also several countries in Europe do not currently recognize full same sex marriage (according to the same site only 12 out of 28 EU members) with 22 out of 28 recognizing same sex unions and 6 neither. What same sex unions means for foreign same-sex married couples in terms of hospital visitation rights is unclear and potentially affects our upcoming Berlin meeting (in Germany only same sex unions and not marriage is currently recognized according to the site).

Cancellation of the Singapore IETF meeting likely represents a significant financial loss to IETF, (expect increased meeting fees to cover that in future), the almost certain loss of a meeting located in the Asia region (also a negative impact on equal participation, fairness and diversity) and possibly the complete loss of a face to face meeting (if another suitable location cannot reasonably be found at short notice) with the associated financial impact of the loss of a 3rd of the annual meeting fee revenue. Taking such a momentous step should be determined by whether the Singapore location represents an actual significant risk to any of the IETF participants based on the actual facts.

If we take such decisions based not on the actual significant risk to any of the IETF participants but on our distaste for aspects of laws or public policy then we are creating a precedent for the future evaluation of meeting locations based on whether some in the community find aspects of the locations laws or public policy unacceptable.  That will IMHO significantly distract from the mission of IETF and significantly impact our ability to meet face to face in a regionally balanced manner.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 10:09 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

On 5/23/16 12:33 AM, Harish Pillay wrote:
> For that matter, and this is something I brought up previously as 
> well, if there is indeed active prosecution, how would you explain 
> http://pinkdot.sg happening in Singapore year in, year out? It is a 
> very public event and no one was prosecuted. Zilch.

I'm unclear on why this is a guarantee that, say, familial rights will be respected.  There were GLBT pride marches for decades in the US, Canada, England, and so on before that became the case.

It used to be common in threat analytic frameworks to define the cost, or risk, of a particular threat as a function of the threat's likelihood and its impact.  That is to say, a low-likelihood threat that had potentially devastating impact was identified as a very high priority despite its unlikely occurrence, specifically because of the dire consequences if it did happen.

The situation in Singapore is that bigotry has the force of law, and should a GLBT person run into that rare medical professional who has a particular animus towards gay people, or a cop who's having a bad day, or whatever, the law in Singapore does not provide protection against that bigotry - rather, the law is on the side of the bigot.  To say that the law is rarely enforced doesn't actually make things better - it introduces a level of uncertainty that may lead people who don't deal with these things to think everything's okay but still leaves the possibility for bad outcomes and high risk for GLBT people, as the power of the state is behind the bigots.

It seems clear that there are two basic sub-threads here: 1) whether the situation in Singapore is actually a problem, and 2) what supporting "diversity" in the IETF means in practice.  I think it's pretty clear that yes, there's a problem in Singapore in that while it's unlikely that someone will run into conflict, the consequences if they do are potentially shattering.  As for what "diversity" means in the IETF, I dunno.  Pretty much every discussion of gender, GLBT issues, and so on gets diverted into a discussion of geography.

Melinda

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 18:14:24 -0800

On 5/24/16 2:20 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I said this already a few messages ago. If instead of the IETF is a
> business meeting that your boss tell you need to go (at least in my
> country, and here comes what you said about different cultures), you
> will have no choice: a) Go there b) You’re fired, maybe unless a
> colleague can make it for you and your boss accept it But
> definitively, you will not be able to argue in front of a court to
> defend your job that you can’t go there because your family need to
> go there with you and that country don’t allow it.

Allow me to suggest that you know no such thing, and that
you're presenting a strawman argument that may, in fact,
be completely false.  US companies tend to come down on the
side of supporting diversity and rejecting bigotry - take
a look at the response to North Carolina's HB2.

It's fine to make conjectures, but please couch it in
terms of "I think this is what would happen."  I believe
that in this case you'd be incorrect.

Melinda

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 09:02:00 +0200

Believe me, not a conjecture at all. I’ve been in that situation in Spain with one of our co-workers a few years ago.

Saludos,
Jordi

---

From: Sandoche Balakrichenan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:17:17 +0200

> I labeled my reply as off-topic as it is not directly related to the
Looking at the plethora of issues that has been discussed, i do agree
that Visa issue has become a off-topic :-).
> https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IAOC-Overview-IETF86-Final.pdf
==> If the Visa issue has been seriously taken into consideration by the
IAOC, i think we should never had an IETF in the US. Ask the number of
students/professionals from Asian and Arab Countries, the harrassment
they pass through from the US embassy just to get a Visa.
>   I don't know how the visa issue is handled in practice as I am not
> an IAOC member.
>
==> I am not here to complain. But, just wanted to point out that the
community that i previously mentioned has learned to adjust and accepted
it as a way of life. If the IAOC has to consider all participants issues
before considering a venue, then  i think it will be difficult to find
one in our planet.

Sandoche.

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:16:05 +0530

> before considering a venue, then  i think it will be difficult to find

I think the visa issue affects a large portion of participants
(non-US/non-EU), yet it is hardly discussed as much on the IETF
mailing lists. I hope that the IAOC is taking that into consideration.
I also think it is rather more important than issues about getting
families to the IETF (which I believe is a perk and not a necessity).
I think we need to focus more on getting participants to the physical
meetings.

We talk about sharing the "travel pain". Visas is an important pain
point for number of Non-EU/Non-US countries.

-- Vinayak

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 04:21:47 -0700

Hi Vinayak,
>point for number of Non-EU/Non-US countries.

I read the first quoted paragraph as meaning that non-US/non-EU IETF 
participants hardly discuss about visa issues on this mailing 
list.  There were 20 messages to the [email-masked] "drop" 
list.  None of those messages were from non-US/non-EU IETF 
participants with concerns about visa issues.

>they pass through from the US embassy just to get a Visa.

The issue being discussed on [email-masked] has political implications.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:08:56 -0400

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Margaret Cullen <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I am fairly disturbed with where this discussion has ended up

Me too. A little empathy could go a long way here (as in so many things).
That's a property of good leadership.

I think Cullen Jennings has it right - its 201[67] and we can do better. so
we should.

On the bigger question of meeting logistics I personally would like to see
1 plenary meeting a year and a massive increase in interim working group
meetings which tend to produce much higher rates of decisions and a focus
on the work at hand.

The IETF does not, imo, generate enough output to justify ~6x3x1200 travel
days a year. For a thin slice of the membership the 3x5 day model is quite
efficient, but for a whole lot of folks it creates significant overhead.
Flipping that burden would decrease the barrier to entry while still
allowing for a periodic cross politicization. I'll note that Mark managed
to have the HTTP2 interims visit all three of our traditional regions
(which also reflected the active participants of the wg.) and that
logistics for smaller groups are simply easier in many many ways.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:34:28 -0400

> That's a property of good leadership.

I think it's really important to understand that a desire to get clarity
does not indicate a lack of empathy.   It's also important to understand
that empathy isn't something that some people deserve and others don't.
The fact that person A has a worse problem than the problem person B has
does not mean that person B's problem doesn't matter.   And indeed even the
act of trying to make such a comparison is incredibly fraught.   As I said
earlier, it's very difficult to discuss this because it's difficult to
avoid making it sound like we have no empathy for person A when we talk
about person B's problem.   But it is not fair to ignore person B's problem
just because person A's problem is worse, particularly because what "worse"
means is very subjective.

For someone who has been discriminated against and marginalized their whole
life, a discussion of the practical effects of a particular example of that
marginalization, and how that particular example compares to the
less-pervasive marginalization that someone else is experiencing which
happens in a particular instance to be just as serious, may indeed feel
non-empathic.

However, I think that on a practical level the only problems that we, the
IETF, can address in this context are specific practical problems.   We,
the IETF, cannot directly address the pervasive discrimination and
marginalization, much as we wish to do so.   Nor need we--these problems
are being addressed on a social level, and many of us participate in trying
to address them on that level.   It is no accident that things have changed
for the better, nor is it the case that we are done.   The IETF is no more
capable of getting Singapore to change its laws with respect to same-sex
relations than we are capable of getting the U.S. to be less unpleasant to
visitors from disfavored countries, or for example to protect travelers
unknowingly carrying prescription asthma medication, Adderall or Ritalin
into Japan.

That is why I at least have chosen to focus on the practical.   It is not a
lack of empathy.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:19:26 +0200

+1

Thanks for this message, I think is the best way to express the situation amd why someone could read part of the discussion as lack of empathy, etc.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <[email-masked]> en nombre de Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: miércoles, 25 de mayo de 2016, 16:34
Para: Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>
CC: Margaret Cullen <[email-masked]>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Patrick McManus <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Margaret Cullen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>Me too. A little empathy could go a long way here (as in so many things). That's a property of good leadership.
>
>
>
>
>
>I think it's really important to understand that a desire to get clarity does not indicate a lack of empathy.   It's also important to understand that empathy isn't something that some people deserve and others don't.   The fact that person A has a worse problem than the problem person B has does not mean that person B's problem doesn't matter.   And indeed even the act of trying to make such a comparison is incredibly fraught.   As I said earlier, it's very difficult to discuss this because it's difficult to avoid making it sound like we have no empathy for person A when we talk about person B's problem.   But it is not fair to ignore person B's problem just because person A's problem is worse, particularly because what "worse" means is very subjective.
>
>For someone who has been discriminated against and marginalized their whole life, a discussion of the practical effects of a particular example of that marginalization, and how that particular example compares to the less-pervasive marginalization that someone else is experiencing which happens in a particular instance to be just as serious, may indeed feel non-empathic.
>
>However, I think that on a practical level the only problems that we, the IETF, can address in this context are specific practical problems.   We, the IETF, cannot directly address the pervasive discrimination and marginalization, much as we wish to do so.   Nor need we--these problems are being addressed on a social level, and many of us participate in trying to address them on that level.   It is no accident that things have changed for the better, nor is it the case that we are done.   The IETF is no more capable of getting Singapore to change its laws with respect to same-sex relations than we are capable of getting the U.S. to be less unpleasant to visitors from disfavored countries, or for example to protect travelers unknowingly carrying prescription asthma medication, Adderall or Ritalin into Japan.
>
>That is why I at least have chosen to focus on the practical.   It is not a lack of empathy.
>
>
>

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 12:51:49 -0400

On 5/24/2016 3:41 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> rights.   Or is the concern that if she were incapacitated, the other 
> parent would be unable to take responsibility for the baby?   I think 
> you have to engage in some pretty significant contortions to construct 
> this as a problem that the IAOC absolutely must, out of fairness, 
> solve. That said, I have no personal experience in this, so I'm 
> asking, not telling: is there a scenario where this would actually be 
> a problem?   How likely is this in practice?

IANAL.  That said, Singapore appears to be a signatory to the Hague 
Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. 
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Singapore-Central-Authority/HCCAICA.
The objectives of the Convention are:

 1. To secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or
    retained in any Contracting State; and
 2. To ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one
    Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting
    States.

- See more at: 
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Singapore-Central-Authority/HCCAICA#sthash.A13d9Ik9.dpuf

The objectives of the Convention are:

 1. To secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or
    retained in any Contracting State; and
 2. To ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one
    Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting
    States.

- See more at: 
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Singapore-Central-Authority/HCCAICA#sthash.A13d9Ik9.dpuf
It states in part:

The objects of the present Convention are -

/a)/   to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or 
retained in any Contracting State; and
/b)/   to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of 
one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting 
States.

To ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one 
Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting 
States - See more at: 
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Singapore-Central-Authority/HCCAICA#sthash.A13d9Ik9.dpuf
The objectives of the Convention are:

 1. To secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or
    retained in any Contracting State; and
 2. To ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one
    Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting
    States.

- See more at: 
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Singapore-Central-Authority/HCCAICA#sthash.A13d9Ik9.dpuf 

The objectives of the Convention are:

 1. To secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or
    retained in any Contracting State; and
 2. To ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one
    Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting
    States.

- See more at: 
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Singapore-Central-Authority/HCCAICA#sthash.A13d9Ik9.dpuf
As I said, IANAL, but (b) seems to imply that your right of custody is 
set by where the child lives, not where you visit.  The answer to Ted's 
question appears to be "it depends" - and the dependency table is at 
https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/acceptances/?mid=1094. 
If the child's country is on this list, then the custody of the child is 
governed by the laws of that country.

(Side note - has anyone ever seen a date represented like it is in this 
table?  E.g. Day-month in roman numerals-4 digit years).

>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Jordi,
>
>     I've never heard any indication that the extremely minimal
>     companion stuff (a mailing list and one gathering that the
>     companions pay for) has factored into the IAOC venue-selection.
>
>     reasons why bringing a child along is necessary - and they don't
>     require others' judgement as to whether those
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     wrote:
>
>         +1 to drop companion stuff IF it is increasing the IAOC
>         venue-selection criteria difficulties, and I want to make it
>         clear, even if it affects me personally at any time.
>
>         Even if is only for simple curiosity (I don’t think our
>         decisions must consider other organizations decisions, but is
>         always good to know), it will be nice to know if
>         venue-selection-criteria of other similar organizations take
>         in consideration possible “difficulties” for companion/familties.
>
>         Regards,
>         Jordi
>
>
>         De: ietf <[email-masked]
>         <mailto:[email-masked]>> en nombre de Yoav Nir
>         <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>         Responder a: <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>         Para: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]
>         <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>         CC: <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>         >> On 24 May 2016, at 9:28 PM, Melinda Shore
>         <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>         >>
>         >I would be happy with dropping the companion stuff for many
>         reasons. The fact that it adds considerations and criteria to
>         the IAOC’s decision process that already has way too many
>         criteria is just another reason to drop it.
>         >
>         >Yoav
>         >
>         >
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:32:50 -0400

Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > I don't, either, but as long as the IETF does, and provides a companion
    > program, I feel quite strongly that IETF travel should be equally
    > accessible to all families.

...
I think we need to think less about the companion program about being about
"vacations" for the family.  I think we should rather think about if we are
serious about supporting/encouraging young people with young families that we
need to recognize that bring the family is sometimes the right decision.

I think that you are saying this above without being explicit enough.

I tried to be gender and orientation neutral above, but let me say it again.
MEN have been historically been at liberty to go on business trips leaving their
WIVES at home with young children.  Such was life at the time.
Women with small children were forced to give up career opportunities.

If we are serious about having more gender and age diversity at the IETF we
have to recognize that bringing the infant and the supporting cast needs to
be supported.   So, when you write, "all families", I take this to mean all of:
   1) young male IETFer with mother+child in tow
   2) young female IETFer with father+child in tow
   3) young male IETFer with co-father+child in tow
   4) young female IETFer with co-mother+child in tow

Try crossing a border or going through an airport with a small child
as a single man.   Particularly if the child doesn't "look" like you
(because, genetically, the child isn't).

This is the kind of concern that I think people have.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 12:37:08 -0800

> need to recognize that bring the family is sometimes the right decision.

Yes, I revised my views on that based on what several
people have posted about their own experiences.

Melinda

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:39:24 -0400

> Actually, it would not be "one meeting." It would eliminate most of
    > Asia until laws are changed in all these countries. It would also add
    > an element to IETF that projects a POV onto another society. That would
    > politicize a technical organization beyond its current charter.

Barry, you said that you live there half the time.

I think that the anxiety is that we do not hear good things about the state
of the justice system.  (There are many other countries and US states were I
think foreigners would equally anxious).

I think that we are comfortable with Japan (for instance) because we have
some idea of what, worse case, we could expect from the justice and medical
apparatus.

Maybe you could speak to this part.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:49:33 -0400

Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > country, that did not recognize LGBT rights, and nobody at that time
    > ever proposed not holding IETFs in that country (the U.S.). We held
    > many, many IETFs in that country. What has changed from then to now?

US citizens from California who bring their same sex partner along to wrangle
the baby do not have to cross a border to enter Texas or Alabama or Utah or..
EU border guards don't care, and speak english well, and we believe that
their legal system isn't corrupt. (I can not speak to truth of it, just belief)

What has changed is:
a) US citizens now have LGBT rights in some places, and have new family
   (legal) arrangements as a result.

b) We are trying to go to more non-US places for reasons of US visa hassles
   and a number of other reasons.

c) Having encouraged more diversity, we have to deal with the actual needs of
   that diversity.

    > In my personal opinion, what has changed is that there are now many
    > fewer potential venues where LGBT families would have to worry. This is
    > a wonderful, positive change. The number of potential IETF venues where

I think it is more than just this.
As I wrote in another email, I think it's also a concern about the treatment
the legal system will give us.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:56:34 -0700

> On May 24, 2016, at 7:14 PM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

My employer has in their code of business conduct strong support for exactly what Melinda is saying. I do not believe anyone at my employer would be fired for being unwilling to put themselves in a position of sexual discrimination. My experience is that most large international companies have similar policies.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 00:29:17 +0200

That was not the point. Let me explain again:

Your work requires you go to a given place for a business meeting. That place will not allow you to go with your family because sexual discrimination. You can’t refuse to go to that place because you only want to go there if you can bring your family.

You still can go there and fulfil your job according to the work laws in your country, even if you don't bring your family. Right?

Saludos,
Jordi

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:54:17 -0400

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 25, 2016, at 6:29 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
I agree with Cullen. My employer would also support an employee not going in that circumstance.  They take diversity seriously and continue to work to improve it.  We have a chief diversity officer and every employee has to have something on their annual review about how they helped with diversity.  

I was booked to go to BA and my employer was fine with me canceling the trip because my son was a bit too young, a family related reason as I could not go without him for a week with breastfeeding.  So no, I couldn't still go.

I'm sure they Would support someone who felt it wasn't possible for them to travel safely with their family for fear of discrimination as well.  If there is some reason why the family needed to accompany them, there wouldn't be an issue.  

Remote access is an option and I used that for BA.

Kathleen

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 00:03:39 -0400

> some idea of what, worse case, we could expect from the justice and medical

I'm comfortable with Japan. It has a very low crime rate. I have relatives
who live there and my great-great grandfather, William Clark Eastlake, is
buried in Tokyo. But comfortable with what could be expected for justice in
Japan in the "worst case"? I assume you are joking:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21679472-suspects-japanese-police-cells-are-far-too-vulnerable-abuse-forced-confess
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/29/abandon-hope-all-ye-tried-in-japan.html
And those articles doesn't even describe how harsh Japanese prisons are.

All courses in life involve risk. All nations have problems. There is no
hope for any policies that ignore probabilities and the weighing of
different considerations. As the IETF becomes increasingly diverse, we will
soon reach a point, if we are not there already, where every IETF meeting
will be boycotted by some potential attendee because of the country where
it is held.

Judging from postings, people think that Buenos Aires was fine. but I found
it to be, from the point of view of crimes against our our attendees, the
most crime ridden place I have ever attended any kind of meeting. IETF
meeting attendees were actually assaulted and robbed. At least a half dozen
and probably a lot more were squirted with fake bird poo. ATMs run by banks
inside bank offices spewed forth counterfeit money. People (including
myself) were routinely scammed by taxi drivers. But apparently, based on
most what most posters say, this is all fine because we have never been
there before and it gave a bunch of new people an opportunity to attend. So
it all depends on what weight you give to what factors....

Donald

---

From: John Hoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 23:42:52 +0800

Hello Melinda, everyone,

> does not address family legal relationships, and so on.
The questions ^^^^^ posed seems largely pragmatic IMO as a Singaporean.

Why don't IETF bring all these questions up to the Law Minister (
https://www.facebook.com/k.shanmugam.page), or, I'm not sure, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs (https://www.mfa.gov.sg/), or contact a Singaporean law
firm?

Also, pardon me for not keeping up to track with the discussion, but based
on the way the paragraph was crafted, are there people in this discussion
who think that tourists who come to Singapore won't get the help they need
(medical in case of accident, protection in case of mugging for example) if
they happen to be LGBT, or such tourists will get bullied or physically
attacked?
​

Melinda

​John​

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:37:35 +0000

On 5/25/16, 7:54 PM, "ietf on behalf of [email-masked]"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]>
wrote:

>I agree with Cullen. My employer would also support an employee not going
>in that circumstance.

+1 
My employer is the same, and would be accommodating of the concern as
well. They¹d likely also encourage me to use the remote attendance tools
and let me schedule my work day (or work from home) to manage any unusual
timezone differences for the zone in which the meeting occurs.

JL