I have a +1 for the general sentiment but some disagreement with the statement "it's a shame that some members of the IETF community cannot bring their family and/or be open and honest about their relationships". To my understanding that is not clearly the case and needs some further investigation to determine what the precise legal situation is and how it applies particularly with regard to individuals coming from countries where their status is perfectly legal. -----Original Message----- From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan Harkins Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 1:09 PM To: venue-selection@xxxxxxxx Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Interim step on meetings site feedback — for sites currently under active consideration First off, Oxford comma. Next, what's an "ethnical" person? And third, as I observed at the plenary, bringing in a very diverse opinion set on inclusiveness and accessibility will make us only meet in Western Europe, North America, and Japan. And what's in the queue for consideration? Western Europe and North America. Sigh. There are plenty of reasons to not meet in Singapore and it's a shame that some members of the IETF community cannot bring their family and/or be open and honest about their relationships. But I think these issues should be balanced with the overall benefit that the IETF World Tour provides. We are a diverse group and I think we leave each city a little better off after we depart because of it. Embargoes seldom have the desired effect. regards, Dan. On Mon, April 18, 2016 9:15 am, The IAOC wrote: > All, > > The IAOC and its meetings committee are continuing to review the > situation with respect to meeting in Singapore. As I noted about a > week ago [1], we are reviewing our meeting planning procedures to > ensure that we have input at appropriate points to ensure issues are > identified and addressed before contracts are signed and announcements > made. This will mean more transparency, including sharing the list of > cities under consideration when we have a workable way to handle and > hear the feedback. We will make concrete progress on that at our retreat in a few weeks time. > > In the meantime, we do have active site discussions and negotiations > ready to close for meetings that are coming up. In addition to > reaching out to groups or agencies that have specific knowledge about > travel for diverse groups including religious, ethnical and LGBTQ > people, we are reaching out to the IETF community as a whole with this note. > > In order to make sure we haven’t overlooked something else that > should have been properly considered for sites under consideration, as > well as to gather some running code on how a feedback process might > work, we would like to hear from anyone who is aware of reasons we > could not have a successful meeting in any of the following cities, or > of any limits to attendee accessibility or inclusiveness that should be considered: > > Paris > Montreal > Copenhagen > > Please send your input to venue-selection@xxxxxxxx. It will help the > review process if the Subject line had the name of the city first, > Subject: <city>. > > In order not miss the contract opportunities, city-specific input > would be most helpful if received by the end of May 2, 2016. > > Other input on the process will be best received in e-mail at > venue-selection@xxxxxxxx with the Subject line: Process. As we > iterate the process we will continue to seek input to fashion a > meeting planning process that works. > > > Leslie, > for the IAOC. > > [1] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hKwBYOwPkE6VTA4mxxf00NTLLF0 > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Leslie Daigle > Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC ldaigle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >