Re: Concerns about Singapore

Dhruv Dhody <> Tue, 12 April 2016 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBF612D576 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, 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 XhAtrPGie3QY for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0D7112D517 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u185so36086495iod.3 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=Yz1K9IGaZ4y9IWBtIHhcjVYLAOyftpKzzcgBPTDsR7E=; b=RJCeDODsJd53Xs/1M9owPxyV51wq9GluOWblmwagqYFfYZ5pMA8iDxzKp4WYLMsEzw pQojWyw+htdpvHpobT5IXwYJYJ4K8drsI3cfypwEisRiOngvxzzHwgpRAEyCcKxYeVB2 Sc+5Dg0VXL3jISqiwIjS+Wdqv6ilsluOG7kwahCIYTICixaYdvtIczomVqa02io+WO6s YQRozQFCRYJrt1TBnN1FPuOLEnrf5QmdgO4mgAoF7TL08oUYtZ6+ChtKuya7qaJpjR3x xY699J5GD8GRT6kaP1UcgVV3fTbsm3mUih3LaWNeNYsBPHgaA0X8iPUJa4LahVgc4jfc P0BQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Yz1K9IGaZ4y9IWBtIHhcjVYLAOyftpKzzcgBPTDsR7E=; b=UN7Ib98DIJNs+OSxKzumJxTj3TABA/rTotiTHXAg5URtiK5LcfQmMhHjUEBC4mZGxS b3bgz5QP2zhF961enfDw8oleCu+ABtaAFUhJRXuQ/SvlwUSC8tygRSI0RMQJZ4eH3ScY yAcuirToY6ZzFKxSIe75amSwskkeScnxQdhKapdhYb0NxhrHJvsXPeAnv4skOB1d9lZ+ PuH+ePhpefHTfzIWXa2ptJlZnaII4JaIlJI+x91zi4IK0oMlzJANGBf8buh+b1YOkpk5 WfBd632xkX4NPs9LmsUGDukkf8hJSgKQOyMZXIvXfnM1PA4f5eBTOJxeCVunhSVKgyW+ gejQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVhpCyq9hn7DTZvqrISWdLom4YtI2nna360vLpc/Y5tW+OvXRUK5Qf3iO2fzU50VyulE3sC8zzfs7qt1g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 75mr5171200iok.155.1460480101185; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <EMEW3|d5cb2cb80712b3716e1ab4e2a54c9430s3BCG403tjc||> <> <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:55:00 -0300
X-Google-Sender-Auth: eXbUUk-5SXkEOtyoLATUdtNYFr4
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
From: Dhruv Dhody <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f89b4a206c505304c855b
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:55:03 -0000


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> I think that at this point the question of what we can do to address the
> Singapore problem is in the hands of the IAOC, which has indicated a
> willingness to explore going even further than Ted asked them to in
> addressing the problem.   Ted asked them to not bring their families to
> Singapore in solidarity with him, since he doesn't feel safe bringing his
> family.

​Ted has a point and it is a concern that we (as a part of the gay
community) have to deal with it daily.

> The IAOC has said they are looking into how difficult it would be to
> actually move IETF 100 to a different country.

​But, to me this is interesting, that we took the discussion, from
solidarity and understanding of the difficulties that the gay community
faces, to sort of escaping it and not dealing with it. By setting this
precedence I am afraid IETF would not take place in a large part of the
world in coming years.

And isn't that excluding people (which BTW *also* includes the members of
the same gay community, but from this part of the world)?

> So I don't think there's anything for us to discuss here, unless you are a
> member of the LGBTQ+ community and have something to add about how you
> think Singapore should be handled.

​I talked to my openly gay friends living in Singapore and told them about
the discussions that's happening here. For what it's worth, I will pass on
details to IAOC if that helps.


​PS. I agree that getting early feedback about a new place is a good idea
and should be followed in future. ​

> Your point about derailment makes sense, though--this is definitely a
> separate issue from the "virtual IETF" issue.
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Loa Andersson <> wrote:
>> Folks,
>> On 2016-04-12 19:15, Tim Chown wrote:
>>> On 12 Apr 2016, at 01:50, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
>>>> The only thing you mentioned that can't be done with existing
>>>> conferencing software is hums, and I'm sure we could figure out a way to
>>>> make that work.  It's not rocket science.   Chairs who judge consensus by
>>>> looking at the room aren't following IETF process--consensus is judged on
>>>> the mailing list.  Hums are useful for figuring out why we _don't_ have
>>>> consensus, and for _getting_ to consensus, but if you were to judge
>>>> consensus by hums or a show of hands, then you'd be taking a vote, wouldn't
>>>> you?
>>> Meetecho has a ‘hum’ button, which throws ‘hmmmmmm’ into the jabber room
>>> for the WG. I did see it used, once.
>> Let me return to the start of this discussion.
>> It seems to me that the LGBTQ peoples concern about a meeting in
>> Singapore is real, at least it is perceived to be real.
>> I don't think anything that is within our power to do can change this
>> perception.
>> Thus we need to take this seriously, the concerns is about our upcoming
>> meeting in Singapore. That should be our focus.
>> /Loa
>>> Tim