Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

> On 26 May 2016, at 11:35 AM, Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Jose Saldana wrote:
> 
>> Another thing to put in the pros and cons: this would set a precedent
>> for future meetings.
>> 
>> This map reflects the current situation worldwide:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage#/media/File:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg
> 
> The map implies that there is no international consensus that same sex
> marriage is/were basic human right and that there are a lot of countries
> where same sex marriage is considered to be criminally immoral.

I don’t think there is consensus in any single country. There’s prevailing law in each country.

> Situation is not so different from legitimacy on smoking marijuana.

With the exception that requiring someone to abstain from smoking marijuana (or drinking alcohol or eating meat) for a week is acceptable though not convenient. Requiring someone to abstain from relations with their spouse is usually considered overboard.

> Thus, international bodies such as ISOC should not have any position
> on the issue.

Well, we’re not ISOC([1]) but we are international and we have a stated position on pervasive monitoring. There’s no international consensus on that either.

> If US court tries to enforce ISOC have some position, it's time to
> consider to relocate ISOC outside of US, maybe to Singapore.
> 
> 							Masataka Ohta

[1] Yes, I know the IETF is an activity of ISOC. (Almost) none of the people on this thread work for ISOC, so any position we come up with is the IETF’s position, not ISOC’s. The fact that the IETF is maybe not a legal person makes no difference in this regard.