Re: Concerns about Singapore

Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com> Sat, 09 April 2016 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <olejacobsen@me.com>
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 BD97912D188 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 14:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.617
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 0InbQbdC3E1J for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 14:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mr11p00im-asmtp002.me.com (mr11p00im-asmtp002.me.com [17.110.69.253]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB31012D185 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 14:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.10.8] (173-11-110-134-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.11.110.134]) by mr11p00im-asmtp002.me.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.36.0 64bit (built Sep 8 2015)) with ESMTPSA id <0O5D00A44X8I4Y30@mr11p00im-asmtp002.me.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 21:05:07 +0000 (GMT)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-04-09_12:,, signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1510270003 definitions=main-1604090321
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 14:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
In-reply-to: <570955E3.2010205@gmail.com>
Message-id: <alpine.OSX.2.01.1604091401420.42313@rabdullah.local>
References: <0D914666-C3D4-4CCE-AD5E-4E5B34EA1A73@piuha.net> <20160407182936.GA21340@pfrc.org> <CAB75xn780nNDjGa_Cc222J20-+1CCHt09Xp8KHzaK=n0xx51pg@mail.gmail.com> <5706B100.9040509@mnt.se> <CAB75xn6fmj84ROUtG5eUB3GerHx83hrEr3w5vSADY_g=BRg5FA@mail.gmail.com> <9B723FB0-6B93-4C85-ADD9-D423F873CF08@virtualized.org> <20160409155300.6283348.41255.10529@blackberry.com> <ADC8666A-436C-4AD4-BD48-9277601069F8@gmail.com> <57093CD3.3050502@gmail.com> <f5b1ceec-4cd5-55b5-5089-4a499ed0586c@bogus.com> <F2D3ACF5-C7BD-4D0C-8518-665D2EDAA6CA@cisco.com> <570955E3.2010205@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/C-CR0HpfW6i_hTVvElKHFSMYMJA>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>
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: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 21:05:09 -0000

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016, Melinda Shore wrote:


> That goes, I think, to the question of unenforceable laws (Lawrence 
> v. Texas).  I'm interested in the question of where the line is 
> between issues that the IETF needs to deal with and matters of 
> personal conscience, and I tend to think it comes down to questions 
> of whether or not meeting participants will be treated equally when 
> it comes to public accommodation, etc.
> 
> As we're seeing, businesses are responding to the recent spate of 
> anti-gay legislation and transphobic potty laws by announcing that 
> they're not opening planned facilities in those states, not allowing 
> their employees to take business travel there, and so on.  So, 
> there's an actual question about whether or not the IETF would be 
> able to meet in a place that's recently passed anti-gay legislation, 
> given some corporate travel restrictions.  As far as I know there 
> are no corporate bans on travel to Singapore, but civil liberties 
> organizations like Civil Rights Watch have identified Singapore as a 
> place where LGBT people still face active legal discrimination and 
> it seems clear that there's a legitimate question about what sort of 
> treatment some meeting participants can expect to receive.
> 
> Melinda

There are several sources online for this information, including the 
US State Department, but we are also actively seeking clarification 
from contacts in Singapore about these issues. So far, I am fairly
certain that our attendees won't notice any issues at all, but stay
tuned as we gather the facts.

Ole