Subject: [Mtgvenue] Venue City Considerations

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 12:54:45 +1200

So, I've been trying to think what we can put in the draft that actually captures
an operationally useful aspect of the issue we've all been debating.

So far, we have:

> 3.3.1.  Venue City Considerations
> 
>    o  Travel to the venue is reasonably acceptable based on cost, time,
>       and burden for participants traveling from multiple regions.  It
>       is anticipated that the burden borne will be generally shared over
>       the course of the year.  [Important]
> 
>    o  Travel barriers to entry, e.g., visa requirements that can limit
>       participation, are researched, noted, and carefully considered.
>       [Important]
> 
>    o  Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this venue are
>       researched, reviewed and carefully considered, at the time the
>       selection is made, and thereafter as the time for the meeting
>       approaches.  [Important]

I think we have to add *something* so here, at the risk of receiving a
lot of email, is something to chew on. I tried to be as neutral as possible,
but that isn't easy:

 o Some participants have legitimate concerns about less tangible
   barriers to travel to certain countries and locations. These may be
   political in nature, such as concerns about various freedoms, or
   legal threats, such as discrimination against certain travellers or
   repression of certain minorities. These barriers too must be researched,
   noted, and carefully considered. [Important]

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 06:47:07 -0400

Hi Brian:

It seems to me that you are expanding on the text already in the draft:

>    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.  [Important]

Is that correct?

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 08:18:02 +1200

>>       issues that would be counter to our principles on inclusiveness

Maybe, but

1) I find that "our principles on inclusiveness etc." is a rather vague phrase.
I'm not sure where those principles are written down. (The mission statement
says "any interested person can participate" which does probably cover it, but
I think it needs to be spelled out more.)

2) It isn't just a matter of reviewing "available travel information". For
example, I looked at the site provided by my university's travel agent, and
couldn't find a hint of the Singapore issue. lonelyplanet.com covers it, but
only if you know to look for it. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/LGBT_travel
is very detailed, but again you have to look for it.

     Brian

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 16:33:58 -0400

"Specific issues that must be checked: are there any laws that would
preclude:

- Same-sex couples' ordinary conduct
- Same-sex couples' legal rights in case of emergency, particularly
visitation and medical power of attorney
- Restricted rights for adoptive parents
- Restricted rights for natural parents
- Any restrictions on rights based on racial characteristics
- Any restrictions based on birth-assigned sex
- Any restrictions resulting from sex reassignment or identification
- Practice of religion
- Onerous visa requirements or uncertainty for IETF participants who might
wish to attend
- Onerous immigration processes for IETF participants who might attend,
particularly immigration processes where admission into the host country is
not reasonably assured once a visa has been approved, if one need have been
applied for"

(To be clear, this is a suggestion specifically for the document, not for
the current evaluation of what to do about Singapore.)

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> only if you know to look for it.
> https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/LGBT_travel
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 08:51:51 +1200

> - Same-sex couples' ordinary conduct

For that matter, *any* couples' ordinary conduct. I am probably
not the only person here to have been denied accommodations when
travelling with someone of the opposite sex while unmarried.
(Admittedly, that was many years ago, in North Wales, but still...)

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 13:00:24 -0800

I'm sitting in a meeting at the moment or I'd do it myself, but I wonder if
there aren't definitions of free and open society that might not help with
scoping.

Melinda

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 19:18:15 -0400

Brief research suggests that the term is used for political purposes and
will not serve.
On May 30, 2016 5:00 PM, "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I'm sitting in a meeting at the moment or I'd do it myself, but I wonder
> if there aren't definitions of free and open society that might not help
> with scoping.
>
> Melinda
>