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? 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 3:12 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 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 >> <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 >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> > -- Best regards, Kathleen