Subject: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 11:14:06 -0400

(Not speaking for the IAOC, which does owe Ted a response, but offering 
some of my own perspective of the meta issues in this discussion).

Again, I see 2 burning issues here:

1/ what do we want to consider appropriate meeting sites going forward, 
and

2/ what to do with IETF 100/Singapore

We’re separating these two because the second has to get decided 
pretty much instantly, and in separating them we have to say that the 
outcome on “2/“ has to be a one-off, and might not be suitable under 
updated policies after we settle out “1/“.

Spelling it out a little bit:

What the IAOC does is make site selections based on (our understanding 
of) the community’s requirements.  To date, our understanding has been 
that we should find sites that allow the greatest proportion of our 
participants to attend the meeting and get the work done.   We expect 
that people make their own choices about attending or not attending a 
meeting, and recognize that is gated on personal choices and beliefs.

If the IETF community wants to shift the focus of requirements and make 
requirements include other things — such as suitability for family 
attendance,  selecting for absence of laws or other policies that make 
the experience more difficult or uncomfortable for some part of our 
community — that’s fine as long as its a consensus position.  And, 
the IAOC needs to have the resultant requirements spelled out[1].   I 
argue that discussion should take place on the aforementioned 
[email-masked] mailing list, where the meeting venue selection 
requirements document is being discussed.

I don’t believe we can have that discussion quickly, with the 
attention to detail that it needs in order to ensure an outcome that 
fits everyone (especially including those who have been more comfortable 
suffering in silence than putting their challenges out for discussion).

And, we need to make a decision about IETF 100 quickly.

So, to be clear, whatever we decided to do with Singapore for IETF 100 
will NOT be a statement about whether we ever meet in Singapore again, 
or never meet in Singapore again (depending on which way the decision 
goes).

Leslie.

[1] Not all requirements are necessarily feasibly implemented, and/or 
there are cost implications, but we can all have that discussion as part 
of the mtgvenue dialog.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 14:13:19 -0700

Thank you Leslie. I agree with the strategy of pursuing two lines of discussion, one about IETF 100 and one about the principles used to guide meeting selection. I think it is clear just from the recent thread that the principles discussion will take some time, in particular because the principles are inter-related in different ways. I don’t think it makes sense to rush that discussion to resolution for the expediency of making a decision about IETF 100. In my personal view I’d like to see some version of the inclusivity principle that currently exists in Fred’s draft adopted as a rule for the road going forward, and feel some shame that this was not done long ago (same goes for the accessibility principle) but I’ll take that opinion over to mtgvenue.

Now, about IETF 100.

After the plenary at IETF 95, the IAOC said that it was "gathering information about the situation — including the full cost of canceling existing contracts, so that the IETF community can have a fuller picture from which to provide guidance for our next steps.” But I don’t feel that our picture is much fuller than the picture we had during IETF 95. Thus far the community hasn’t heard anything to characterize the costs of moving IETF 100, nor the opportunities the IAOC investigated for covering those costs, nor the possibilities for other meeting options, nor the criteria that the IAOC used to evaluate those other options given the unique circumstances of potentially needing to relocate a meeting on short order (e.g., “relaxing" the 1:1:1* guideline for 2017, dealing with higher hotel room costs, moving to different dates, etc.).  We have heard some non-IAOC folks make claims about some of those things, but we haven’t received any specific insight from the IAOC about those things that could form the basis from which the community can “provide guidance” on the IAOC’s next steps. This is information the IAOC is exclusively positioned to provide (unlike country-specific information from travel.state.gov).

I realize that there are some details directly implicated by contract negotiations that the IAOC may consider unwise to share on a public mailing list. But it would seem that there is a good amount of detail about each of the items above that can be shared with the community if the point is to get well-informed feedback.

I raise this in particular because Cisco happens to be the host for IETF 100. In chatting with folks around the company, it didn't seem to me that anyone had been contacted by the IAOC about the possibility of helping to offset costs associated with relocating the meeting, prior to you sending your mail last week. This causes me to wonder about exactly what the IAOC considered under the banner of "costs and possibilities of moving the meeting to a different location" in coming to its current decision.

I think it’s obvious that some folks have a clear-cut opinion about whether Singapore is or is not a suitable venue for IETF 100 even in the absence of this information. I would put myself in that camp — having thought about this a lot recently and considered my own participation and the potential impact on other participants, I can’t support the decision to have the meeting there. But I would still like to understand the implications if that decision is made, and for others this may well be key information they need to ground their input to the IAOC.

Thanks,
Alissa

> On May 23, 2016, at 8:14 AM, Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> (Not speaking for the IAOC, which does owe Ted a response, but offering some of my own perspective of the meta issues in this discussion).
> 
> 1/ what do we want to consider appropriate meeting sites going forward, and
> 
> We’re separating these two because the second has to get decided pretty much instantly, and in separating them we have to say that the outcome on “2/“ has to be a one-off, and might not be suitable under updated policies after we settle out “1/“.
> 
> What the IAOC does is make site selections based on (our understanding of) the community’s requirements.  To date, our understanding has been that we should find sites that allow the greatest proportion of our participants to attend the meeting and get the work done.   We expect that people make their own choices about attending or not attending a meeting, and recognize that is gated on personal choices and beliefs.
> 
> If the IETF community wants to shift the focus of requirements and make requirements include other things — such as suitability for family attendance,  selecting for absence of laws or other policies that make the experience more difficult or uncomfortable for some part of our community — that’s fine as long as its a consensus position.  And, the IAOC needs to have the resultant requirements spelled out[1].   I argue that discussion should take place on the aforementioned [email-masked] mailing list, where the meeting venue selection requirements document is being discussed.
> 
> I don’t believe we can have that discussion quickly, with the attention to detail that it needs in order to ensure an outcome that fits everyone (especially including those who have been more comfortable suffering in silence than putting their challenges out for discussion).
> 
> So, to be clear, whatever we decided to do with Singapore for IETF 100 will NOT be a statement about whether we ever meet in Singapore again, or never meet in Singapore again (depending on which way the decision goes).
> 
> Leslie.
> 
> 
> [1] Not all requirements are necessarily feasibly implemented, and/or there are cost implications, but we can all have that discussion as part of the mtgvenue dialog.
> 
> 
> -- 
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 03:10:45 +0100

On 23/05/16 22:13, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> I raise this in particular because Cisco happens to be the host for
> IETF 100. In chatting with folks around the company, it didn't seem
> to me that anyone had been contacted by the IAOC about the
> possibility of helping to offset costs associated with relocating the
> meeting, prior to you sending your mail last week. 

I think that is a point that the IAOC can and really must specifically
address. I don't need to know the content of the communication between
the IAOC and the meeting sponsor, but the IAOC do I think need to tell
us if there was communication between the IAOC (or a subcommittee of, or
other body reporting to, the IAOC) and the meeting sponsor for IETF-100
about the controversy over this meeting and the potential practicality
and/or costs for switching it to another venue.

I don't ask in an attempt to catch folks out or cast aspersions as to
individual folks' capabilities, so I'm not trying to apportion blame.
I'm really wondering if maybe a) the IAOC don't know the answer, (thus
calling into question whether internal IAOC structures are actually
blocking transparency), or b) if the IAOC does know that discussion
with the IETF-100 sponsor happened, then I just don't get why that
wasn't communicated to the community already (calling into question the
apparent intent to switch to a more open mode of operation), or c) if
there was no such communication, then...really? And doesn't that seem
to imply that structures within/reporting-to the IAOC don't seem to
be sensitive to community concerns or even IAOC statements?

I hope there's a (d) answer though, as none of (a), (b) or (c) reflect
very well on how the IAOC is operating. (And again, I'm not trying to
criticise any individual - I think if there are such problems, they are
likely inherent how the IAOC-confidential-by-default setup and similar
systems naturally evolve over a decade or so.)

S.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 02:43:58 -0400

(Forgive the top posting--airport thumb typing).

Below you say that you expect the discussion of long term principles to go
to [email-masked].  For the short term IETF 100 discussion, I didn't see
an explicit pointer for where to participate.  Based on traffic to date, I
expect that to stay on [email-masked].  Does that match what the IAOC
expects?

thanks,

Ted

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> We’re separating these two because the second has to get decided pretty
> much instantly, and in separating them we have to say that the outcome on
> “2/“ has to be a one-off, and might not be suitable under updated policies
> after we settle out “1/“.
>
> What the IAOC does is make site selections based on (our understanding of)
> the community’s requirements.  To date, our understanding has been that we
> should find sites that allow the greatest proportion of our participants to
> attend the meeting and get the work done.   We expect that people make
> their own choices about attending or not attending a meeting, and recognize
> that is gated on personal choices and beliefs.
>
> attendance,  selecting for absence of laws or other policies that make the
> experience more difficult or uncomfortable for some part of our community —
> that’s fine as long as its a consensus position.  And, the IAOC needs to
> have the resultant requirements spelled out[1].   I argue that discussion
> should take place on the aforementioned [email-masked] mailing list,
> where the meeting venue selection requirements document is being discussed.
>
> I don’t believe we can have that discussion quickly, with the attention to
> detail that it needs in order to ensure an outcome that fits everyone
> (especially including those who have been more comfortable suffering in
> silence than putting their challenges out for discussion).
>
> will NOT be a statement about whether we ever meet in Singapore again, or
> never meet in Singapore again (depending on which way the decision goes).
>
> Leslie.
>
>
> there are cost implications, but we can all have that discussion as part of
> the mtgvenue dialog.
>
>
> --
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 07:56:56 +0100

> expect that to stay on [email-masked].  Does that match what the IAOC

I've a similar question: there is also ongoing discussion of
changing the default policy for how the IAOC handle business
in general, and not just associated with meeting venues. I
assume that ought also remain on [email-masked] but be good to
get the IAOC's take on that too when you answer the above.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:56:16 +0200

I don’t want to speak for the IAOC or the host, but wanted to provide a quick response to the question regarding the possible parameters of moving somewhere else.

We have some of that information, and trying gather the rest. Leslie will be sending more information this week, but even by then we will not have as much information as we’d like to have. Bottom line: moving will imply relaxing 1-1-1 and exact dates to do the search; at least I am ready to do that, as is Leslie. There is a cancellation fee. Still, finding a bookable venue is still hard work, particularly if one wants use an existing and IETF-tested one. The search is ongoing by the secretariat. And my understanding is that the host is willing to move and host elsewhere.

Jari

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 09:20:13 -0400

Hi,

(Still speaking for myself)

When the IAOC put together the follow up message with its proposal to 
keep IETF 100 in Singapore, we did have some internal back-and-forth 
about how much detail to put into the reasoning section.  We had a few 
of reasons for that:

+ it’s hard to share the specific data in a way that will communicate 
information usefully to a cast of thousands who mostly aren’t thinking 
in terms of, for example:  an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is 
actually an IETF meeting NOW for planning purposes.  We can talk about 
the details and options for taking different approaches, and this 
community will, but they aren’t really options for taking different 
approaches unless you are talking about a meeting that is a few years 
out, and we’re not.

+ the data is entangled and some of it is conditional 
(if-this-then-maybe-that) — I don’t believe we can present it 
crisply and clearly

+ we are told, on many occasions, just how much this community does not 
want to hear the inner workings of the IASA, and some people physically 
recoil from the prospect of actually being on the IAOC.  You (the 
community) populate the IAOC to track these details and get the work 
done.  Let us do that.

All that having been said, and to give a preview of an answer to the 
question of where/how to discuss IETF 100, I am asking the IAOC to share 
more detail about the specifics of how we see the tradeoffs for IETF 100 
in Singapore/not (from the practical level, only, and with the caveat 
that it will be messy), and to present it in a way that we can hope to 
get feedback from a much broader set of our community than is currently 
engaging in this topic on the IETF@ mailing list.

On that last point — I’d like to be sure that, if we are asking the 
community, we are doing our best to hear from all of our community, 
including a broad spectrum of people from minority groups that have been 
challenged by previous venue selections.

For at least some people, the sort of all-in discussion free for all 
we’re engaging in here is not the most comfortable way to share those 
experiences, and we’re not hearing all of those voices.

I hope to be able to share that, shortly — but it will be an IAOC 
message, not on personal title, and, like any group of more than .5 
IETFers, the IAOC needs some time to find its internal consensus.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 23 May 2016, at 17:13, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Thank you Leslie. I agree with the strategy of pursuing two lines of 
> discussion, one about IETF 100 and one about the principles used to 
> guide meeting selection. I think it is clear just from the recent 
> thread that the principles discussion will take some time, in 
> particular because the principles are inter-related in different ways. 
> I don’t think it makes sense to rush that discussion to resolution 
> for the expediency of making a decision about IETF 100. In my personal 
> view I’d like to see some version of the inclusivity principle that 
> currently exists in Fred’s draft adopted as a rule for the road 
> going forward, and feel some shame that this was not done long ago 
> (same goes for the accessibility principle) but I’ll take that 
> opinion over to mtgvenue.
>
> Now, about IETF 100.
>
> After the plenary at IETF 95, the IAOC said that it was "gathering 
> information about the situation — including the full cost of 
> canceling existing contracts, so that the IETF community can have a 
> fuller picture from which to provide guidance for our next steps.” 
> But I don’t feel that our picture is much fuller than the picture we 
> had during IETF 95. Thus far the community hasn’t heard anything to 
> characterize the costs of moving IETF 100, nor the opportunities the 
> IAOC investigated for covering those costs, nor the possibilities for 
> other meeting options, nor the criteria that the IAOC used to evaluate 
> those other options given the unique circumstances of potentially 
> needing to relocate a meeting on short order (e.g., “relaxing" the 
> 1:1:1* guideline for 2017, dealing with higher hotel room costs, 
> moving to different dates, etc.).  We have heard some non-IAOC folks 
> make claims about some of those things, but we haven’t received any 
> specific insight from the IAOC about those things that could form the 
> basis from which the community can “provide guidance” on the 
> IAOC’s next steps. This is information the IAOC is exclusively 
> positioned to provide (unlike country-specific information from 
> travel.state.gov).
>
> I realize that there are some details directly implicated by contract 
> negotiations that the IAOC may consider unwise to share on a public 
> mailing list. But it would seem that there is a good amount of detail 
> about each of the items above that can be shared with the community if 
> the point is to get well-informed feedback.
>
> IETF 100. In chatting with folks around the company, it didn't seem to 
> me that anyone had been contacted by the IAOC about the possibility of 
> helping to offset costs associated with relocating the meeting, prior 
> to you sending your mail last week. This causes me to wonder about 
> exactly what the IAOC considered under the banner of "costs and 
> possibilities of moving the meeting to a different location" in coming 
> to its current decision.
>
> I think it’s obvious that some folks have a clear-cut opinion about 
> whether Singapore is or is not a suitable venue for IETF 100 even in 
> the absence of this information. I would put myself in that camp — 
> having thought about this a lot recently and considered my own 
> participation and the potential impact on other participants, I 
> can’t support the decision to have the meeting there. But I would 
> still like to understand the implications if that decision is made, 
> and for others this may well be key information they need to ground 
> their input to the IAOC.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
>> (Not speaking for the IAOC, which does owe Ted a response, but 
>> offering some of my own perspective of the meta issues in this 
>> discussion).
>>
>> outcome on “2/“ has to be a one-off, and might not be suitable 
>> under updated policies after we settle out “1/“.
>>
>> What the IAOC does is make site selections based on (our 
>> understanding of) the community’s requirements.  To date, our 
>> understanding has been that we should find sites that allow the 
>> greatest proportion of our participants to attend the meeting and get 
>> the work done.   We expect that people make their own choices about 
>> attending or not attending a meeting, and recognize that is gated on 
>> personal choices and beliefs.
>>
>> If the IETF community wants to shift the focus of requirements and 
>> make requirements include other things — such as suitability for 
>> family attendance,  selecting for absence of laws or other policies 
>> that make the experience more difficult or uncomfortable for some 
>> part of our community — that’s fine as long as its a consensus 
>> position.  And, the IAOC needs to have the resultant requirements 
>> spelled out[1].   I argue that discussion should take place on the 
>> aforementioned [email-masked] mailing list, where the meeting 
>> venue selection requirements document is being discussed.
>>
>> fits everyone (especially including those who have been more 
>> comfortable suffering in silence than putting their challenges out 
>> for discussion).
>>
>> So, to be clear, whatever we decided to do with Singapore for IETF 
>> 100 will NOT be a statement about whether we ever meet in Singapore 
>> again, or never meet in Singapore again (depending on which way the 
>> decision goes).
>>
>> Leslie.
>>
>>
>> there are cost implications, but we can all have that discussion as 
>> part of the mtgvenue dialog.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 09:19:50 -0500

On 5/24/16 08:20, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is actually an IETF meeting NOW 
> for planning purposes.

What I'm hearing (here and elsewhere in the thread) is that we have a 
long-term policy issue that we should address with considerable 
deliberation and at a pace that respects the gravity of the issue; and 
that we have an extremely short term "go or no-go" decision that needs 
to be made now, right now, immediately regarding IETF 100.

While there have been a variety of positions put forth on the topic, I 
think there's good evidence in this conversation that the final, 
long-term policy that we'll form on this topic would probably, if 
complete and in place today, rule out Singapore as a potential 
destination. It's not a foregone conclusion, and I'm not trying to claim 
anything like consensus. I'm just pointing out that it's a real possibility.

 From that perspective, it seems that the snap judgement that needs to 
be made right now can only safely be made by revectoring to a different 
location. If the situation is as urgent as you portray it to be, it 
sounds like there's not time for the more protracted course of action 
you propose, unless going to Singapore is a foregone conclusion and this 
is merely an exercise in justification.

/a

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:38:13 -0400

Hi,

Thanks, a cogent summary, though I think it underplays a couple of key 
points:

1/ the cost of backing out of Singapore at this date (this is the 
picture we’re trying to put together in a way that will be useful for 
public consumption)

2/ whether a broader range of people than have failed to unsubscribe 
from the IETF@ mailing list are on board with canceling (there are a few 
different conversations that are going on in the background and they are 
not all supportive of canceling).

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 24 May 2016, at 10:19, Adam Roach wrote:

>> an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is actually an IETF meeting 
>> NOW for planning purposes.
>
>
> destination. It's not a foregone conclusion, and I'm not trying to 
> claim anything like consensus. I'm just pointing out that it's a real 
> possibility.
>
> be made right now can only safely be made by revectoring to a 
> different location. If the situation is as urgent as you portray it to 
> be, it sounds like there's not time for the more protracted course of 
> action you propose, unless going to Singapore is a foregone conclusion 
> and this is merely an exercise in justification.
>
> /a

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:01:42 -0500

> picture we’re trying to put together in a way that will be useful for 

Certainly, and I look forward to this information being shared with the 
community. As it appears to be the key practical countervailing 
argument, I would have hoped to have seen it in the initial message from 
the IAOC on the topic.

> from the IETF@ mailing list are on board with canceling (there are a 
> few different conversations that are going on in the background and 
> they are not all supportive of canceling). 

I'm sure there are. Be careful when using majority opinion to make 
decisions that affect minority populations. Tyranny of the majority 
remains the Achilles heel of democracies (and this is writ large in 
consensus building exercises).

/a

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:38:00 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 24 May 2016, Adam Roach wrote:
>
> Be careful when using majority opinion to make decisions that affect 
> minority populations. Tyranny of the majority remains the Achilles 
> heel of democracies (and this is writ large in consensus building 
> exercises).
> 
> /a
> 

Yet we seem to do that all the time so let me ask you this:

Suppose we could predict# that some number of attendees from China 
would be denied* entry into the US or Canada or Argentina at an
upcoming meeting. Should we conclude that holding the meeting in
those locations is unacceptable and seek a relocation?

* By "denied" I mean no response received about visa application,
visa denied, visa approved months after meeting took place, etc.
In one IETF meeting, 77 people from China applied for letters of
invitation and visas, 27 were able to receive the visas in time
to attend.

# Predicting is hard, but we know that there are almost always
visa problems for the Chinese when we meet in the US or Canada.
Sometime it is much worse than other times.

Ole

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 19:54:57 -0400

> 2/ what to do with IETF 100/Singapore

...

    > or never meet in Singapore again (depending on which way the decision

I'd like to remind that this meeting is in November, which is when nomcom
interviews.

I don't feel the IAOC has taken enough account of this in the past, and I
don't feel that the choice for IETF100 took this well enough into account.

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

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:38:49 -0500

> and this is merely an exercise in justification.

I mostly agree with Adam.

I agree that we need to separate the two issues. And by that, I mean 
separate them broadly.

I absolutely agree we need to fix the policy, and that such a fix would 
involve a long-term discussion. It will take time to get things right. 
But I think we also need to take a step back from the IETF100 issue when 
we have the policy discussion. While the IETF100 discussion will be 
instructive, it seems to me that we are in crisis mode. History shows us 
that crises rarely result in good policy.

So let's deal with IETF100 now, with what we do (or will hopefully soon) 
know. I think the fact the crisis is happening suggests in the abstract 
that we should revector this one meeting without worrying too much about 
setting precedents. That may or may not still make sense in the face of 
more concrete information about our options.

Ben.

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:25:16 +1000

Given the constraint set, can the IAOC post a list of economies
worldwide, that given its current understanding of their social equity
issues, are not likely to be a problem?

I'm not at this stage concerned about the other constraints like
technology, access to airports, hotel size. Just, the new(er)
constraints regarding this specific problem: If we do now have a
ring-fence, I think we need to understand how big the remaining
economy-pool is.

I ask the question this way round, because I suspect its a smaller set
than the other one. If thats not true, then the anti-set is fine.

It would help, if we can also see a mark/count of which of them have
been visited how often in the past.

If its easier, the entire worldwide economy list with a mark for 'not
acceptable on this constraint' and a count of attendance would do it.

cheers

-George

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> long-term policy issue that we should address with considerable deliberation
>> and at a pace that respects the gravity of the issue; and that we have an
>> extremely short term "go or no-go" decision that needs to be made now, right
>> now, immediately regarding IETF 100.
>>
>> think there's good evidence in this conversation that the final, long-term
>> policy that we'll form on this topic would probably, if complete and in
>> place today, rule out Singapore as a potential destination. It's not a
>> foregone conclusion, and I'm not trying to claim anything like consensus.
>> I'm just pointing out that it's a real possibility.
>>
>> From that perspective, it seems that the snap judgement that needs to be
>> made right now can only safely be made by revectoring to a different
>> location. If the situation is as urgent as you portray it to be, it sounds
>> like there's not time for the more protracted course of action you propose,
>> unless going to Singapore is a foregone conclusion and this is merely an
>> exercise in justification.
>>
>
> involve a long-term discussion. It will take time to get things right. But I
> think we also need to take a step back from the IETF100 issue when we have
> the policy discussion. While the IETF100 discussion will be instructive, it
> seems to me that we are in crisis mode. History shows us that crises rarely
> result in good policy.
>
> know. I think the fact the crisis is happening suggests in the abstract that
> we should revector this one meeting without worrying too much about setting
> precedents. That may or may not still make sense in the face of more
> concrete information about our options.
>
> Ben.
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:09:55 +0200

> upcoming meeting. Should we conclude that holding the meeting in those
> locations is unacceptable and seek a relocation?

yes, if "some number" is non-trivial, e.g. > {1,2}

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 09:34:54 -0400

--On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 12:38 -0700 Ole Jacobsen
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> Suppose we could predict# that some number of attendees from
> China  would be denied* entry into the US or Canada or
> Argentina at an upcoming meeting. Should we conclude that
> holding the meeting in those locations is unacceptable and
> seek a relocation?

> * By "denied" I mean no response received about visa
> application, visa denied, visa approved months after meeting
> took place, etc. In one IETF meeting, 77 people from China
> applied for letters of invitation and visas, 27 were able to
> receive the visas in time to attend.
> 

Ole,

Since we seem to be waxing philosophical here, three
complementary rhetorical questions:

(1) The easiest place for Chinese citizens to attend a meeting,
with a guarantee of no visa problems, is (obviously) China.    A
corollary to our question above is that we should be holding
additional meetings in China (some "somewhere in Asia that might
be relatively friendly to Chinese passport holders").  How would
you balance that reason for planning more meetings in China
against the disadvantages of doing so, disadvantages that
include uncertainty about visas for others (see below), air
quality issues, questions about availability of open networks
(at least for attendees staying in other than the official hotel
and possibly for the general population), etc.?  Note that
inverting that question turns into exactly your question above
about very large numbers of US and Canadian attendees versus
visa issues.

(2) Very often, I suggest including in the situation of Chinese
passport holders trying to get visas for the US or Canada (and
especially its variability), delays, hassles, and other barriers
exist on a tit-for-tat basis, i.e., "you make it unpleasant[1]
for our citizens to visit your country; we  will make it
unpleasant for yours to visit ours".  Your observation "sometime
it is much worse than other times" is almost certainly a symptom
of such behavior.   It is often nearly impossible to figure out
who really started such escalations and possibly not helpful
even if it can be figured out.  Do you adjust the weighting
factor if the countries involved are doing it to each other? [2]

(3)  China and the US are now granting 10 year visas, which
presumably implies that, even if the (reciprocal) processes
don't get more pleasant, the frequency with which one needs to
go through them should be vastly reduced.  I assume that getting
such a visa requires evidence of likelihood of frequent travel.
Does that imply that we should hold more meetings in China so
that the visa authorities can be told, in invitation letters,
how often people will be coming back?  More meetings in the US
or Canada, with the invitation letters specifying all such
meetings and the invitation of the applicant to them?

     john

[1] "Unpleasant" including high fees, requirements to schedule
f2f interviews, long lead times, general discourtesy, demands
for unreasonable levels of documentation, and general "you need
to prove your innocence beyond any plausible doubt" behavior. 

[2] For the record, I've been timed out on an application for a
Chinese visa after getting several of them before and after.  I
have every reason to believe that the main reasons was someone's
(or some institution's) idea of reciprocity.   But timeouts for
US passport-holders trying to go to China are not a theoretical
issue (fwiw, I've also been timed out by Brazil -- nothing
unique about China or the US-China relationship).

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 07:09:23 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 25 May 2016, John C Klensin wrote:

>
> Ole,
> 
> Since we seem to be waxing philosophical here, three complementary 
> rhetorical questions:
> 
> (1) The easiest place for Chinese citizens to attend a meeting, with 
> a guarantee of no visa problems, is (obviously) China.  A corollary 
> to our question above is that we should be holding additional 
> meetings in China (some "somewhere in Asia that might be relatively 
> friendly to Chinese passport holders").  How would you balance that 
> reason for planning more meetings in China against the disadvantages 
> of doing so, disadvantages that include uncertainty about visas for 
> others (see below), air quality issues, questions about availability 
> of open networks (at least for attendees staying in other than the 
> official hotel and possibly for the general population), etc.?  
> Note that inverting that question turns into exactly your question 
> above about very large numbers of US and Canadian attendees versus 
> visa issues.
>

As you know, last time we went to China it was only after a long 
debate, and as such I would expect us to have a similar debate
if it happened again for all the reasons you list. Since all of those
issues (including in-bound visas) affect every non-local attendee,
I would expect the community to come to a go or no-go decision based
in part by the perceived number of people negatively affected.

I don't have any comments on your other points.

Ole

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:06:38 -0400

> locations is unacceptable and seek a relocation?

I believe that we should conclude that, and that we ought to seek a
relocation as well.  It would have been nice if this had somehow gone up to
the US Senate along with the IANA Transition stuff this week.

    > * By "denied" I mean no response received about visa application, visa
    > denied, visa approved months after meeting took place, etc.  In one
    > IETF meeting, 77 people from China applied for letters of invitation
    > and visas, 27 were able to receive the visas in time to attend.

I note that it included one IAB member who was not returned for a second term.
Would the nomcom have made a different decision had an in-person interview
been possible?  I don't know.

---

From: Sandoche Balakrichenan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 11:24:39 +0200

> they are not all supportive of canceling).
==> I do agree with cancelling Singapore, if the IETF will consider for
all future events issues which hinder the actual participant from
attending an IETF event. For e.g. Visa obtention. If the IETF is not
able guarantee visa for an aspiring IETF participant, then will it
cancel such a venue?

Haven't we opened a can of worms?

Sandoche.

---

From: Michal Krsek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 11:54:50 +0200

> Haven't we opened a can of worms?

Not really, as HMS (Her Majesty Ship) Illustrous is ready for sale. With "some" maintenance she is able to leave UK. 

So who is starting collecting money of kickstarter? Guessing 50.000.000 GBP may cover the bill.

Michal

P.S: excuse my irony, but ...