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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Fri, 27 May 2016 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9680512D650 for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 08:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, 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 Dwp6JJ4nOc6H for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 08:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07B6C12D621 for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 08:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h19so108642631ywc.0 for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 08:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KSTnx9GFC7F4yLDSyAB0L+Xo8FNtUWr7ppClEN6P9EQ=; b=ksu0vmwPzSFkI8ATEZiUXBGznedGBE5iCkGyXVUGsLqp0yciqcmzcxRdnNcMsOWFvD yDbyYrhCX7xWKUs+1V5UxbLNmt3dYRqFnVUbbB+A5j7CzjgqSx7Q31NLJO70pjEamZ59 OZipbEc4ll5OknEiYBfGBuvusLKQWPVAN20mnF+dJ/cAOuRgXO69sCbz7Qx7Q8C4IFja Uu12jHs7sgGG1ZvxhoQ57twKkFd79MTOXW6Ighihy9Py6GYxB1b+fRrcg2p1zJOjczKF h1x/olMUIx2UethAfj7bOUoKSlUh4vK4mJZF2aacEMCqrtB/2okzUJ08cGreRR8NPLrP CBvA==
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=KSTnx9GFC7F4yLDSyAB0L+Xo8FNtUWr7ppClEN6P9EQ=; b=PQIERJPRfqkrHVKbbXxi2iggaepv8fe57nhViqwkVnhKnCEGAriMG3/udojgAvDOip j2/TeHGq9zFuUfNyP3l2HB9yVZ0BMiFPUXYYUXrQLGt/9lIMfL992xWf/5x7OTPjQZ8b AletG/5tlZpnpQ8tqD7sj4DD5q9x24ZeK3yu7UPPQXBZpxKoYrg68oFvvGxGJjBUGeLI bRSvqceHATnIaR/GqKKepXZtWGXmuBMzovFaLK2v1XLsI/JUqsAI5wYnAmOYirT5Vfjb KZ4GOtfxOZohl5b/omy62TNQB8yn8Hmq2awsyG4UumBSF7f2io1rqqb0McS3NyycjH6a CZOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKfxICrFJpCOA0YnUstKwtfo877YWBXFYL8CEUhWZqnXtto1Ee5hoGVhGYILoKuS1S963BpQuadr6FHKOSu
X-Received: by with SMTP id l128mr8872875ybc.152.1464361665065; Fri, 27 May 2016 08:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2016 08:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 00:07:25 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: IETF Discussion <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114bba62defccc0533d44451
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, IETF Announcement List <>
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: Fri, 27 May 2016 15:07:47 -0000

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:08 AM, IAOC Chair <> wrote:

> Reasons for Cancellation of IETF 100 Meeting in Singapore, and the IAOC
> understands that to be:
> “    Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men and
>     preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create
>     difficulties for same-sex partners and their children; these have
>     discouraged affected members of our community from participating
>     at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced
>     others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them.

Independently of whether the meeting is cancelled for this reason or not,
it seems to me that if public/publicised, this sort of statement could
provide ammunition for critics of the IETF community to assert that the
IETF is not only (or no longer only) a technical organization but also a
political one. Is that something we want to get into?

Also, as a procedural matter: if the IAOC publicly makes such a statement
it could be interpreted as speaking for the IETF community. Can the IAOC do
that without rough consensus among IETF participants that that is a message
the community wants to send?

If the statement is not public/publicised, these concerns probably don't
apply. Obviously these discussion threads are public and anyone can read
them, but it would be hard for a third party convincingly to construe them
as the view of the IETF, as opposed to the views of individual IETF
participants. (Particularly because the number of people posting on the
topic is a small fraction of the number of meeting attendees, and thus a
smaller fraction of the community.)