Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 25 May 2016 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC69812D0A6 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56V7xJdCKq16 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98AB512D549 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k7so19413660lbm.0 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RSk9DFpb9O1RhvaUG0mbz03KZcHgrQ88X+U6k+QltLo=; b=bFURMSOLfK29a/kTR+xKVpTsf0Htmlyahxggjoy3g/odShHQ7Cce0t7tYdsMXGRsMW LwoSwp4CgN9IiEQND5o1c3031btimibQY1Go06Qx9tjKnPelbCOwXu6uI4b28mCX+/h4 fnnMmTVjlPPkyVTfHDx2qDMKkDUjYC1T57AI0Z9CzTmWENDyEiH2Ckh9PF+CT033ubCu H0CnW3NwDSsE89r7m3TBl4kNHo4coiniP3LcJ7nqLeJCtnY7cRPCgQ7gm+bCEpH5Cn6q wJy77Ab3GtRtAs8eRqf58GYxHHiHt8BBmvcEiHQ0TOG2X/NVtpFuVHwUkSrCsVyiJtah XwBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RSk9DFpb9O1RhvaUG0mbz03KZcHgrQ88X+U6k+QltLo=; b=MVK80NGOVVnLpcdmZ5RMowtD2j1cYbyzwu/m9ktz06/73/tZLVPhV1xeUI+SOeEb90 Q0TOHDd2eolPAWy0UW0z6k9Jj0Xinl54SY9d1E2mvNTcUFCvTfDk4hUaC91ZOSVdQAoR BCAAUGxwjbdutqSN+0TSENhMKK+Jq075b02tKvpAY+Ht/WEsoYK2AZdmdHlsHE1irAHM fxrx+o+qkb75JDe3hcGnscjmPZb058pbjfbF7Y1Pg9InEe4ZbbNwh/WeznGmdmMZuAl1 1B6GTT8oytX8x5D6PWJk+O3Tanrjc1iC3ujVz01uHJhlIwIsaDFSbi17rJaz5XvRKmls HWdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKZPXdbTtM1ocmeHc7XhMi8/umPkg/QAj2duRwI5SuCbXvXh2HIjNzHWVw9LzUW5WQqWk3HsOnrrd5HWw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id j193mr1621614lfg.139.1464212706861; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:44:26 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Melinda Shore <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11412a8844be1e0533b19611"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 21:50:21 -0000

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Melinda Shore <>

> On 5/25/16 12:36 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> It's probably easier to enumerate who's excluded than who's included:
> No, it's still not really working.
> Would we, for example, be willing to meet in a place that
> criminalizes Muslims or Jews or Hindus?  I sincerely hope not,
> and I don't think that we would.

I think you are right.   But we routinely have meetings in a country that
forces Sikhs to be humiliated in the process of entering.   I've never
heard anybody object to that.

I suppose it would provide some small personal assurance if the IETF,
> in fact, would meet in such a place and the issue here is not that
> people here are comfortable excluding GLBT people as a class.  (I'd
> skip that meeting, too, for whatever it's worth).

To speak personally about my feelings on this, since you've brought up who
is comfortable with what, I am not comfortable with excluding LGBT
participants who can't attend because they are at risk of prosecution.
I'm not even comfortable with LGBT participants having to evaluate whether
to risk breaking the law should they attend.   I'm not arguing about this
because arguing about it is comfortable for me, nor because I would be
comfortable with an outcome where you would not feel comfortable coming to
a specific IETF meeting.

The reason I'm challenging you on this is that I don't think there are any
IETF attendees who would be at risk of prosecution, no matter what
consensual behavior they engage in in the privacy of their hotel rooms.
So if we were to decide not to go to Singapore, it would not be because
anybody was excluded as a matter of some practical risk that they would
face if they attended, but because of a matter of principle.   I think the
principle is important; I don't want to minimize that.   But let us be
clear: it really is a matter of principle.

And it's not easy for me to see how that specific matter of principle
trumps the actual hardship that will occur for numerous IETF attendees who
come to the U.S., and also those who are unable to do so, _in addition_ to
the rather egregious matter of principle that is our current border policy,
which has, as I mentioned earlier, resulted in actual people actually being
beaten and jailed fairly recently.   People who share our general level of
economic privilege, I might add, so that, despite having the degree of
privilege required merely to attend an IETF in person, they still would be
at risk.

Michael wrote:
> US citizens from California who bring their same sex partner along to
> the baby do not have to cross a border to enter Texas or Alabama or Utah

What about foreign citizens flying in to Dallas/Fort Worth, or into Atlanta?