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

Yoav Nir <> Thu, 26 May 2016 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB9712D6F8 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, 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 ORBooQ0zK_XT for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8480F12D69D for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a136so31245103wme.0 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=u0ztCOgS/98jxII0JcZuMsaL043GX7O881gfEwaUHuQ=; b=PWuGse7wtAPnBfKmg3O471Tn5y9FlkLHJqPcXIrtnx+P6uRETmcbcSQLgtB0c7jceb FJscKdzA+P3wVYQShub9fZJoloCgbD6C4td7nTxQiItv80vLLmw8I4RP6loCY0aWZu8r NEQkBvBETQ8+rcaGsxM12N6pOfjjs1J1ELf6mLvL5hg8fv85xI/puUM/MbSLVbWaMsqr vw2n7wBcRXW3Q18Po7nd3MZRgOCm3Djl9bxe01TIE9Mn9xUFdd0+ByUIErJ7IMeT2l2S SLvzd/oZgUJeMezAAEJJkliUKDsBhD9XeTCrHLEj8M0xnZeWZiIYpxb3VQVjkGcAdxHh UW2Q==
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 :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=u0ztCOgS/98jxII0JcZuMsaL043GX7O881gfEwaUHuQ=; b=lJQtle4oiS/IfOGciNRLijBskoI/ovQjtL5FOMhsWv/bD6vKtdPPPcBUV5/Wb3+Q18 7G1JRFvTrLKPobwJGDV1EVqzJ+TouUYkLnj0sbCD2zHdXIjdVYaTA5FVuhtZ3eXS08SB Khsu8UXxWGeep4JvHIVn+qaMcTve1mVwjAq1daDXOAWms/lA5p1vD3u5OfkOumrSLUjS Z+7ee3Rmnacf6lsSy9wksoUIGkh3Rs6HPbVV9t7La43SrPd5+Z1/sZgP/cf4sNYoV6EB DG9So1olO80KyJXTZ6F5AqB7Qzud6zEIAGeIB3phAjpiObsb4wy3mjn+vqxXaf+pwokq 0wAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL+faEvJHvA1eOJIi+wZzVhtrV4kN8RjPRoMLcIPbfjiCyDG4iKHNYb9cb5QGbCow==
X-Received: by with SMTP id td20mr4195179wjb.86.1464274584022; Thu, 26 May 2016 07:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id m8sm9306628wjd.34.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 26 May 2016 07:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: Yoav Nir <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:56:21 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <003701d1b720$38acf2f0$aa06d8d0$> <>
To: Masataka Ohta <>
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:56:37 -0000

> On 26 May 2016, at 11:35 AM, Masataka Ohta <> 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:
> 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.