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

Margaret Cullen <> Tue, 24 May 2016 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC4612D50A for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 15:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KuWT1WWCtjrs for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 15:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52E3D12D58F for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 15:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h19so31299343ywc.0 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 15:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=H0gDmUwWTWhIJB9i8/0xF0QDxpgQx6Pcbd42AvydWVM=; b=P1WE8dBfrPEkln9ZlaPtyeoATtAoRHAPDCdmjWnhraDQc8YMZOat5yuPjhnyCY8cOi KFzscpxmCAR3YVH6BInOUaLqMGkKM6z/AZ5A1VyzVNbqCATd9Ipw1oPRdq5pZXcHP2gy fooZ8ODGXhOZvvDY97LJu4obk3gFeyGNPoQGojiV+F+sl4e9oKoFdvigwwUV3FmZn401 sqopoW+rZ/bPgAE6vBDCob3XfOxscWTqPacWMQVXGGeFAVXqjgdA/c1n6QLDPO1nlnLS QKtoYKWC4I2Fphw2irD2k+1LGLyH/guqazXhDbf4pgueCSIWg0um2reAc+7AehOhBLVj pNyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=H0gDmUwWTWhIJB9i8/0xF0QDxpgQx6Pcbd42AvydWVM=; b=RTaGoRarB5jL6HlX0KNCmfao2uDww2OGOL9LwV+gVw5NoWWOlOtiVbOVMEFDBoRRek iVarGJkf4GAEif+Mqh0d9p/VqPLuCCHtnAXEDqIbYFEeWvtDcCANxFjTD/E6KGxl1rD4 R6mVfrWxulJp30VWqykThKDw1aWQctkkv71ujS2koOzOlpgYIq5HStM+1zi+9Yq5yei2 BlD67tr1aM7Pi0F+hMw8FbRlmYdiLThZ0vg/y+CXMiWamRZWY0x7mXoe+5jQpre4zC/M lEvipRmsB2dYX16uf6uuBG+vkorDLW5QIc4+OQMV/gXrHJ0FxkmsYa7vAMZwHxFhKwqX u2OQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJFKfAAgNK9szyiIZSO/jBr5PRCrxpmnNOQf7H+ouONjS7KbSgQqEvKkzx5+FuB6Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 203mr470614ybo.12.1464130621565; Tue, 24 May 2016 15:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from margarets-air-3.home ( []) by with ESMTPSA id l185sm3065574ywb.24.2016. for <> (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 May 2016 15:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Margaret Cullen <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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: Margaret Cullen <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 18:56:59 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:57:03 -0000

I am fairly disturbed with where this discussion has ended up, because as I understand it we are saying “Men having sex with other men is not actually necessary for the work of the IETF, so it is okay to go to a country that criminalizes it”.  Would it have been okay to hold a meeting in apartheid South Africa if we’d been able to visas for black colleagues affording them the privileges of white people, so that they could gather?  Would we hold a meeting in a country where women can't own property, drive, or go out in public unaccompanied, because those things are not technically required in order to do the work of the IETF?  

How much would it cost the IETF to rebook IETF 100 at this point?  There must be a dollar amount involved, but I haven’t seen it (did I miss something?).   I think the community should assess whether or not it is worth that cost to move the meeting to another location.  Maybe some of us would be willing to contribute to a special fund to offset the cancellation costs?