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

Dave Crocker <> Thu, 26 May 2016 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5211112D802 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G11tUGd4vjTZ for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5A6612D7F5 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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 <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:18 -0700
Subject: Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
References: <> <027501d1b724$632c2c40$> <> <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
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 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.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking