Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Margaret Cullen <> Wed, 25 May 2016 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3CE12D61E; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YGnCh99t01Fq; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 696D112D52A; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o16so61177858ywd.2; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BSckBqS/7R5dNusMl6KsYwbWSTxke1/8+17wfNMnOkY=; b=AT0XYW12gfGebeTMJFSB4RdxDk8BuNaEHg8duqsfAnJLYeZeJzbjwwESj5XyFSDazi iPtt9H6JuwZW/hZbnrBva3Yx7xhujSIPt89r8L1u3qivFwdyAS8RgLhy6EsNXPfqSqNc 5DEIWnMbnZ3zyPgV5VLLFzP5AyDqUG/3lhtKvtgfHo+6cR+6GHmxKdFCK6hr1Ka6J/6g ZO87HEcC7P3Viq51B20r3NmJYNdZraeS1PUE19JXRbwvzc7BjYUPLLesRBCHDaynecT7 swlekrSSzJDGqWYMRpRCkcXPMXgcmhkY+Ut5mYj9O8TU8D5LZVvMGXEpiebk3FNfeQip JVzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BSckBqS/7R5dNusMl6KsYwbWSTxke1/8+17wfNMnOkY=; b=W5oFkNOP1eEbFAAUtKTTC8aO6cFFuTyxckQ6gNzwTuYyU8IIh2z4rBaQY+lNOyu8V0 W1UTjYkPN93H5+kOdQcctoIupZdKY+5hBshWGD9oX/IwHG2SWN97Z2VCiMLgq+QcLPpI b8CBassQvw+BWZ4AB9sS9Dj8oUsMvd5nPDhUYp0YZ7u2T5QqADX3hRIciXpDdkZc5ZIx ajcC1X4F9F7O99sxFSroJ8kizmJsf2Ht2wN0CV1ucsCPWXasqbGGAgfZMK60nyz7hqCL D5qTtyh3ud5wcZFwdLJ7N9/T5sZ97TAkCwKAPizOHYE2Qd7c4dvRC6kdNoW77ZgRTF+S wJdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKCQFb2eoNCPgwhl3VDsIKkiD5Dm38XdBlW6kV20dFWpS1mH/oBcSf2EjEpITE8KQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id k198mr4135389ywe.52.1464217779335; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from margarets-air-3.home ( []) by with ESMTPSA id r135sm731829ywg.29.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 25 May 2016 16:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Margaret Cullen <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: Margaret Cullen <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:09:37 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 23:09:41 -0000

I understand that this is a very difficult situation, but I think you have left something important out of your list of pros and cons.  If we cancel the Singapore meeting, we get to say _this_ to the Singapore government, who wants us to meet there enough that they have offered us $150K in incentives for us to come there:

> “    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.
>    Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the meeting
>    in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.”

If, instead, we hold this milestone meeting in Singapore despite the fact that these issues have been raised, we are sending the message that we consider basic human rights violations to be no more of a disincentive to visiting a particular venue than visa issues, cost considerations, or other items that have been raised in this discussion as examples of why “no venue is perfect”.