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

Melinda Shore <> Mon, 23 May 2016 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D396D12D90E for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 07:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 DUAFHydtPMr3 for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 07:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3021E12D8F5 for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 07:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id qo8so63438370pab.1 for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 07:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Wh1sZWt951YDl0E+mYbvbhj2LPAfMckFY6mEK7UuBms=; b=dpBuIvNlo9+5geemI0qlGS53zKvQIm1XfkZnMWbQyNtxPUATnrO7zuRsxM3N8Pj+CE wodEP7RmdTB24vuCGtEOjFH+DueQruPWapqBPToEJBB93piHmVRl5Ylhiv37BielQ1Ki IL/NooYh0S/9Jky0xriRb76pI7lqjkRV2sX9Dj7/KQnKrx1xeEfUw8MZfixz7rzGPGHP I1Fohk/n+qkBSZRzFtepmxorXDi9nCEK0IxiR/RFMeu5JYhjd9IaXggT5Y9BeDb80kkS kK64Bi2YBBbNTbqB+u1ogqnSm9cDsmGm5ZXeVUDTK4Gqhquyk4jw/n+GR/HQoR2PgKHk 6kJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Wh1sZWt951YDl0E+mYbvbhj2LPAfMckFY6mEK7UuBms=; b=W72CE5BPFSQ8HtpnKUsh4AJRxromjj/VFGcC+YJIUvTMoMrIa/YNcGR0s3S9UyaDMW XYW1ENvzVIC7iExiWWaAbqIuugyAUmyb1KAa1GMH8STTLMIyCwfgDyAENVMJLgRLR+YC q6rZFOq9fT+ckBCmjyP4dgYS+yN+DQ8KQoTMQXrvf1kUlsiiES65J2XozKCaOjblmpUl 5ExGR5RR4O3kqWjgZlfVdx4bVXQGgn9BtzfGTwRm7lI/wkLdYmqyFbIp6nnO84oydK6a KBB5vxHGbUFmf0KPAg07r1T3U8kzi50TBfxr4DN/ByscY7ZBQGo9V53GfJfGnXQ67psb dXiA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW83nDYhfmJiBucuiA8DLadMGYHeB3G/fopS/JPJP+DxJRNwfN5Iog/nWSGaPxrHw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id b10mr27668945pat.12.1464012566646; Mon, 23 May 2016 07:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id zs16sm47225834pab.13.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 23 May 2016 07:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <> <> <>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 06:09:06 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
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: Mon, 23 May 2016 14:09:29 -0000

On 5/23/16 12:33 AM, Harish Pillay wrote:
> For that matter, and this is something I brought up previously as well,
> if there is indeed active prosecution, how would you explain
> happening in Singapore year in, year out? It is a very public event and
> no one was prosecuted. Zilch.

I'm unclear on why this is a guarantee that, say, familial rights
will be respected.  There were GLBT pride marches for decades in
the US, Canada, England, and so on before that became the case.

It used to be common in threat analytic frameworks to define the
cost, or risk, of a particular threat as a function of the threat's
likelihood and its impact.  That is to say, a low-likelihood threat
that had potentially devastating impact was identified as a very
high priority despite its unlikely occurrence, specifically
because of the dire consequences if it did happen.

The situation in Singapore is that bigotry has the force of law, and
should a GLBT person run into that rare medical professional who has a
particular animus towards gay people, or a cop who's having a bad day,
or whatever, the law in Singapore does not provide protection against
that bigotry - rather, the law is on the side of the bigot.  To say
that the law is rarely enforced doesn't actually make things better -
it introduces a level of uncertainty that may lead people who don't
deal with these things to think everything's okay but still leaves the
possibility for bad outcomes and high risk for GLBT people, as the
power of the state is behind the bigots.

It seems clear that there are two basic sub-threads here: 1) whether
the situation in Singapore is actually a problem, and 2) what supporting
"diversity" in the IETF means in practice.  I think it's pretty clear
that yes, there's a problem in Singapore in that while it's unlikely
that someone will run into conflict, the consequences if they do are
potentially shattering.  As for what "diversity" means in the IETF,
I dunno.  Pretty much every discussion of gender, GLBT issues, and so
on gets diverted into a discussion of geography.