Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Masataka Ohta <> Thu, 26 May 2016 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D7712D542 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 08:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EF5yj51oOv6d for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 08:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id E0EAF12D122 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 08:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 59939 invoked from network); 26 May 2016 15:27:50 -0000
Received: from (HELO ? ( by with SMTP; 26 May 2016 15:27:50 -0000
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Yoav Nir <>
References: <> <003701d1b720$38acf2f0$aa06d8d0$> <> <>
From: Masataka Ohta <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 00:48:41 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; format=flowed; delsp=yes
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:48:52 -0000

Yoav Nir wrote:

>> The map implies that there is no international consensus that same
>> sex marriage is/were basic human right and that there are a lot of
>> countries where same sex marriage is considered to be criminally
>> immoral.
> I don’t think there is consensus in any single country. There’s
> prevailing law in each country.

Thus, it is wrong to assume there were consensus in IETF to
acknowledge same sex marriage.

>> Situation is not so different from legitimacy on smoking
>> marijuana.
> With the exception that requiring someone to abstain from smoking
> marijuana (or drinking alcohol or eating meat) for a week is
> acceptable though not convenient. Requiring someone to abstain from
> relations with their spouse is usually considered overboard.

Just recently, in Japan, a person smoking marijuana as terminal
care for cancer was arrested, even though the person says it
is basic human right to smoke marijuana to avoid irresistable
pain from the cancer.

What if, you are smoking marijuana as terminal care for cancer
and the next and, for you, the last, IETF meeting will be held
in Japan?

Or, abstaining from relations with their spouse is much more

 >> Thus, international bodies such as ISOC should not have any
 >> position on the issue.
 > Well, we’re not ISOC([1])

OK. You won't sue ISOC merely because an IETF meeting is held in

Then, legally, I think we are done. Thank you.

						Masataka Ohta