Dear all,
I think it's very good that we are discussing this issue, but I am
afraid that we'll not come to a conclusion unless we (further) develop a
framework and process to facilitate the decision making.
draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02 is a good start but
as this discussion shows, several things have not taken into consideration.
I think it would be good to define additional criteria we would like the
IAOC to consider. Some of the things that have been brought up are:
* the impact the legal environment has on participants
* the impact the social environment has on participants
* the impact the legal environment has on participants partners and/or
children
* the impact the social environment has on participants partners and/or
children
* the signal IETF is sending with holding a meeting in a specific
country (both positive and negative)
* the level of human rights abuses in a selected country (there are no
countries with no violations, but some countries violations are
definitely more grave than others, and some countries are on a more
positive path than others)
I hope this helps.
Best,
Niels
PS In the discussion on access to IETF meetings a thing that gets
discussed less so (AFAIK) are the meeting fees, which are really quite
high if you're not funded by your employer. A programme to wave the fees
for say 10 participants per meeting might be also be a constructive
addition, even though out of the scope of this discussion.
On 05/26/2016 05:30 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> Nalini,
>
> (see also answer from Harish)
>
> The questions you list are almost identical to ones that were compiled
> based on early discussions on this list and which have been presented
> to various parties in Singapore and to folks in same-sex relationships
> who travel there frequently. The answers to all questions were, as you
> might expect, "no issues." These answers has been countered as
> "unhelpful" by some because they do not offer an iron-clad guarantee,
> and of course the law in question still is on the books and therefore
> there is a perceived risk and uncertainty about its application.
>
> The IAOC or its committees is not set up to offer legal or medical
> advice nor even much travel advice beyond basic information. What the
> IAOC has done is evaluate the information received and researched
> following the announcement in BA.
>
> Speaking only for myself, I believe we can have a successful meeting
> in Singapore and that none of the concerns raised will be experienced
> by any participant or family for this meeting.
>
> Let me just add that Singapore is one of the top destinations in the
> world for conferences and major events of all kinds (F-1 racing being
> perhaps the most famous) as well as a major medical destination for
> all of Asia. Many large corporations and organizations have offices
> in Singapore. I personally do not believe that these organizations
> and events would continue to support Singapore (financially) if there
> were frequent reports of harassment and discrimination for visitors.
>
> This is not to say that life for the LGBT community in Singapore is
> without problems or that the laws shouldn't be changed. But I agree
> with you that moving the meeting would not be in the best interest
> of the IETF.
>
> Finally, the discussion about what requirements we should apply when
> choosing future venues continues and it is ultimately up to the
> community to decide what criteria should be applied when selecting
> meeting locations. That's still work-in-progress!
>
> Ole
>
>
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor and Publisher
> The Internet Protocol Journal
> Office: +1 415-550-9433
> Cell: +1 415-370-4628
> Cell Norway: +47 98 00 26 30
> docomo: (090) 3337-9311
> Web: protocoljournal.org
> E-mail: olejacobsen@xxxxxx
>
>
>
>
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9