Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Yoav Nir <> Tue, 24 May 2016 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6280212D96C for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 11:14:46 -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 F4fME8g7beXh for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 11:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9462512D973 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 11:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a136so87783193wme.0 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 11:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=UuM/6vGVOtLRhAY57bUi3HkRBvSLLmbn5Ca4Yy+mtNE=; b=WmK9WQ2zOb1RI2xL87+XTuCdpO1sm8tptZVhOed8bbkYOtb9NVuhQlAv/VXDtkINFA 1ycEEsH9YuprvC3xIId3ghQdETPJ+0V6G4DRpXmY6KCXZv2Xd4BTyAx8Irm8jj+Xi+py aWy8YGkqyxOoA5hBvI36ZFHPmhmx2TVzGN7B6X8Vp5ySGtaGPJlYDoGhMj/iEfJTrnc2 PZHOBWEKxYYSzLYj5/ICRMoUb7Vp3G4qnFJRIK5unDRfEU8NBIM831fQi8qEkuec19Fg u92hzI4smwcxhUcLwmz1aO9TnoJ7Xi6gkFJ2PaGke6IvBdQ343rCqsQQRvJE5TOWa42t QDKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=UuM/6vGVOtLRhAY57bUi3HkRBvSLLmbn5Ca4Yy+mtNE=; b=kHGHbCHj1WDprUbT8U9DdLWBYAKBY+5lq2IrwpPDoON39uWo+3ZBR9o606b5AHJwnN MZZZG+g2SrRBOMsH2i9qSEYNMeWX1xMicy0SiAhnAkJI1IB/R+kuBcsq3BUnzsSzgwXo zkCuAIipg3xf51DgdlJaAEaWrFGgg6lUOERTIUr6WTwa+MPzuMmbSg3QiudM8wfDrgP3 cZ5P+Du7iM5kuAgwmEEotgJhdJXdtPRe3xf7u+MXJ8pP0lrktTLgQdzcR8+FoYOZ6sRu gcYTjkJjYfcbhsl4S4LzHw/QUKu9+VAGbsdnAzb9Z+GIpZzvPEKbFxMy6cavpDxwjLzf TZCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLg1Kp9eoiIonJHHtKTBq6UJrvJBFvS44sVuBzlDJc1A7UtsJKfXmULzK7NPtqFyg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id j185mr148702wmj.17.1464113683035; Tue, 24 May 2016 11:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id u6sm20512690wmd.21.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 May 2016 11:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8232D185-D153-4828-AA03-CC3815EAD9B1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
From: Yoav Nir <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 21:14:40 +0300
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Adam Roach <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion 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: Tue, 24 May 2016 18:14:46 -0000

On 24 May 2016, at 8:44 PM, Adam Roach <> wrote:

>> I do not doubt that it sucks to be a gay or bisexual male living in Singapore. Spending a week there for work should be fine.
> I'll again agree with Jari's formulation, adding emphasis to the final three cited words: "I think it is of course necessary to consider things that affect the ability to enter, safety (possibly including usual human activities that people do outside meetings anyway, families travelling along)”.

Then I guess where I disagree with both you and Melinda is that I don’t think the ability to bring families along should be an important consideration. This may be because I have never traveled to work with family, nor do I consider them coming as anything other than a vacation (for them - I would be stuck in meetings). I am somewhat uncomfortable with idea of a companion program, but that’s a subject for a different thread.

Yes, there are exceptional cases such as when people need to travel with companions due to disability. Traveling with family beyond that is a choice. Assuming the worst about Singapore, it’s not fair that I have that choice, while Ted may feel that he does not. But if we can conclude that our participants themselves face no risk of harm or discrimination, I don’t think that should be a consideration.