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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 26 May 2016 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5211112D802 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G11tUGd4vjTZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (unknown [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5A6612D7F5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u4QHmI6C015549 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:18 -0700
Subject: Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <027501d1b724$632c2c40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <1BA2C633-3B80-462D-A7F7-D948B159E23F@thinkingcat.com> <5D31E5B4-4D00-4E59-A0BC-7FA413F3EE21@insensate.co.uk> <60784a45-3455-3bc4-9b7c-17d00a325a43@gmail.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <8f202d84-db33-d8ef-efda-c33f9bfcb232@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:05 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <60784a45-3455-3bc4-9b7c-17d00a325a43@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BHVAbMn7_9B2l7J0PgBVNQ6rpUQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:48:13 -0000

On 5/26/2016 10:35 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 5/26/16 9:25 AM, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
>> As Ohta-san pointed out, there is no international consensus on single
>> sex marriage as a human right.
>
> This is not about recognition of same-sex marriage, and I
> expect that one of the reasons we're having difficulty making
> progress is that there's confusion on that point.


This highlights a basic challenge for the general topic under 
consideration. Some others have been pointing to the challenge, but I do 
not believe it yet has been clearly marked for action here:

        The nature of the current topic is to exclude from consideration 
as a venue those places with laws and/or policies and/or practices that 
are deemed by the IETF community to be unacceptable.

      We need a clear and complete statement of the social and legal 
realities that are to be used to disqualify a venue.  We need that 
statement to have IETF rough consensus.

Absent that agreed list, we are conducting random walk through an 
ambiguous decision-tree.  Certainly its absence leaves the IAOC with 
inadequate guidance for avoiding future errors as is being assessed 
about Singapore.

This does not make light of the social/legal issues getting focus here. 
Rather it is an attempt to move the consideration to something that can 
be used as a clear decision-making policy.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net