Hi Ted,
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> 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. 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?
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
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> 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.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 acountry whose laws may not recognize familial ties legal in other countries. There can certainly be personalreasons why bringing a child along is necessary - and they don't require others' judgement as to whether thosereasons are "deserving" enough.Regards,AliaOn Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
Responder a: <ynir.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 20:52
Para: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
>
>> On 24 May 2016, at 9:28 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>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
>
>