Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

Randy Presuhn <> Mon, 23 May 2016 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12F312D0FC for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 12:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (384-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IOg1h6X3uqFT for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 12:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE9C12B05F for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 12:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=TifHeawbM0/jCZRqqZ2QIEeuF7iiWYB+XlSmsYRwBnQFG2d1klRR0XVoviKGBw9g; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] ( by with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1b4vRq-0006oU-Vb for; Mon, 23 May 2016 15:23:30 -0400
Received: from by with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 15:23:30 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:23:30 -0400
From: Randy Presuhn <>
To: IETF discussion list <>
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: EarthLink Zoo Mail 1.0
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888b484d7840976cb7e54dae00f2264adc29a07f618cc7b8d2c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Randy Presuhn <>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 19:23:40 -0000

Hi -

>From: Leslie Daigle <>
>Sent: May 23, 2016 8:14 AM
>To: IETF discussion list <>
>Subject: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
>(Not speaking for the IAOC, which does owe Ted a response, but offering 
>some of my own perspective of the meta issues in this discussion).
>Again, I see 2 burning issues here:
>1/ what do we want to consider appropriate meeting sites going forward, 
>2/ what to do with IETF 100/Singapore

Though I understand the concerns expressed, particularly for families
traveling with children (look at the cases under litigation by Lambda
Legal or NCLR in the US to see why folks sorry about these things) as
well as the "it's 2016 already" argument, if I had any need to go to
IETF 100, I'd happily travel to Singapore, and my husband would insist
on joining me there.  The last time we were there it was our port of
disembarkation from a gay cruise, so we arrived along with hundreds of
other gay men and a handful of women.  Though the legal situation there
may be analogous to pre-2003 Texas, as tourists we felt far safer and
more comfortable there than we would in many places in the US in 2016.
Though I'm occasionally mistaken for a straight man, many of our fellow
travellers did not have the benefit of "passing privilege", yet I'm not
aware of anyone of our group encountering any consequent problems in

So while I see the selection of Singapore is a definite "oops",
I don't think the effort / expense of changing the venue would
be worthwhile.