First, I'd like to
thank the IAOC for going to the community for commentary on this issue.
I believe that the IAOC is working toward being more transparent with
the community, and I think this is an important step.
Secondly, I'd like to note publicly that I have asked the IAOC a clarifying question. In reading their message, I noted that they said "Singapore can function as a meeting location for IETF100". It was not clear to me, however, what the scope of that assessment was. I have asked the IAOC to clarify if that assessment was of only the working meetings or if it included assessing the usual accommodations for families and partners (or even included an assessment of whether it was suitable for a gala occasion, given the 100th).
Personally, I did and do support the conclusion that it is suitable for a working meeting. The issues in Singapore might occur with public displays of affection between members of same sex couples, family rights issues with an accompanying spouse or children, or with interactions with police. None are common working group experiences. A single individual, traveling alone, is simply unlikely to be affected.
I cannot support, however, a conclusion that it meets the other roles. Traveling with my son to territories where my marriage and parentage might not be recognized involves at minimum both a lot of paperwork (bringing birth certificates, judge's orders, letters allowing me to make medical decisions) and some risk. I simply would not, personally, do that to allow him to attend an IETF, and I believe the same to be true for other families like ours.
I am not yet sure whether I am agreeing with the IAOC, disagreeing with the IAOC, or we simply are not yet agreed on what the problem is. I understand that they will discuss the matter in their upcoming meeting next Wednesday, and I look forward to a response sometime after then.
Lastly, I want to point to a comment I made to the venue selection list: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/venue-selection/YJXG4WtJKyjUrrRT78hOR4Mzn-c. The most salient piece is this:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:14 PM, IAOC Chair <iaoc-chair@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Secondly, I'd like to note publicly that I have asked the IAOC a clarifying question. In reading their message, I noted that they said "Singapore can function as a meeting location for IETF100". It was not clear to me, however, what the scope of that assessment was. I have asked the IAOC to clarify if that assessment was of only the working meetings or if it included assessing the usual accommodations for families and partners (or even included an assessment of whether it was suitable for a gala occasion, given the 100th).
Personally, I did and do support the conclusion that it is suitable for a working meeting. The issues in Singapore might occur with public displays of affection between members of same sex couples, family rights issues with an accompanying spouse or children, or with interactions with police. None are common working group experiences. A single individual, traveling alone, is simply unlikely to be affected.
I cannot support, however, a conclusion that it meets the other roles. Traveling with my son to territories where my marriage and parentage might not be recognized involves at minimum both a lot of paperwork (bringing birth certificates, judge's orders, letters allowing me to make medical decisions) and some risk. I simply would not, personally, do that to allow him to attend an IETF, and I believe the same to be true for other families like ours.
I am not yet sure whether I am agreeing with the IAOC, disagreeing with the IAOC, or we simply are not yet agreed on what the problem is. I understand that they will discuss the matter in their upcoming meeting next Wednesday, and I look forward to a response sometime after then.
Lastly, I want to point to a comment I made to the venue selection list: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/venue-selection/YJXG4WtJKyjUrrRT78hOR4Mzn-c. The most salient piece is this:
The institution of the companion program has increased the visibility of
families joining IETF participants, and it is clear that some participants
see venues that are friendly to family travel as a benefit. But it's not
currently clear where that accommodation falls in site selection or where
it should. To clarify that, I suspect that the IAOC will ultimately need
to lead a community discussion on the extent to which the accommodation of
accompanying family members should be considered in site selection.
How to factor specific issues in this category into our meeting planning is
part of what came up for Singapore, but the question does not really end
there. It touches not just on pretty much every aspect of diversity, but
on basic issues of travel freedom. While many of us and our families have
a relatively unfettered access to tourist travel, for some of our
colleagues the ability to get a business travel visa to a specific
destination in no way guarantees that their family could get tourist visas
to accompany them to a specific site.As I
said in that message, I believe we need a community discussion of
that larger issue, and I look forward to contributing to it when it
occurs.
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:14 PM, IAOC Chair <iaoc-chair@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On April 7, 2016, the IAOC announced that IETF 100 scheduled for November 2017 will be held in Singapore. This venue, as any other, was announced as soon as it was under contract and thus secured. Following this announcement, concerns were raised about anti-LGBT laws in Singapore that the IAOC was not aware of. We apologise for missing this.
The IAOC took the action to review the current committed plan for IETF 100, and also to review 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. The process updates are in progress, and an outline of the current update is copied below. Our focus here is on bringing IETF 100 to closure.
Having reviewed the Singapore proposal in the light of the plenary input, we have a proposal for moving forward and would like community input — see below.
Review
The IAOC meetings committee reviewed the options for IETF 100, including investigating costs and possibilities of moving the meeting to a different location. In keeping with the updated process outlined below, they checked with official advisory sources and consulted with specialty travel services, frequent travelers, and local representatives about the concerns that have been raised. The input received from those sources is consistent with the text on http://travel.state.gov [1].
>From that research, at a strictly practical level, the IAOC believes that it is possible to have a successful meeting in Singapore. The IAOC proposes that holding the meeting in Singapore is the best option for IETF 100 at this time.
Next Step:
The IAOC would like to hear from the community by June 1st, 2016 on barriers to holding a successful meeting in Singapore. Responses should be directed to venue-selection@xxxxxxxx
Again, we apologize for the failures in the venue selection process that took place here and we are moving to enhance that process, to avoid this type of error in the future.
Leslie Daigle, for the IAOC.
[1] Relevant text from http://travel.state.gov :
"While the Singapore government has stated that it will not enforce
this section of the penal code, the law remains on the statute books.
Singapore does not recognize same-sex unions. LGBT individuals may
have difficulty gaining employment in certain sectors of the civil service."
[2] Appendix: Updated Process
N.B.: These are draft procedures being further refined as we speak. For more information and input on the overall meeting venue selection process document, please join the mtgvenue@xxxxxxxx mailing list.
IETF meeting venues are selected through a process which involves
several steps and numerous specific criteria. The IAOC and its Meeting
Committee are in the process of better documenting these steps in the
Internet-Draft draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process.
Based on the experience the following changes have been introduced to
the draft:
Section 3.3.1:
o Review available travel information (such as
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country.html) for issues
that would be counter to our principles on inclusiveness etc.
[Mandatory]
And these steps have been added to the process covered in Section 3.5
of the draft:
D. The Meetings Committee consults Official Advisory Sources, consults
with speciality travel services, frequent travelers and local
contacts, to determine if there are barriers to holding a successful
meeting in the target cities.
E. The IAOC asks the community whether there are any barriers to
holding a successful meeting in the target cities.
As covered in the draft, these steps will occur very early in the
venue selection process – at least 3 years prior. For the current set
of meetings being planned, the timing of the steps will be driven by
contract schedule and will occur before future contract signing.
_______________________________________________
Recentattendees mailing list
Recentattendees@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees