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

Xiaohong Deng <> Thu, 26 May 2016 05:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9EC812D55A; Wed, 25 May 2016 22:21:45 -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 7Y3l-L6jkqrT; Wed, 25 May 2016 22:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79BC512B00E; Wed, 25 May 2016 22:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 190so46751241iow.1; Wed, 25 May 2016 22:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=jd4F3nqBNttTqRKW4ZTNYIcSsFrWE4SISGXuITIvHWc=; b=OnuURz0Bk4XmoB1O3x8J/9EoqrWqSYxmgT3fyG6uK9w7eoDOnowLPOSKiTElT+m5iC oPYqJ7aSB+pPvKqccDnFsjoHKLXaA4+5y5XxFO7CPwmahSntsyYpd0MBM5W4+8qyMFS/ 7UDMOxBev6NK3PzoOSA9CBoqPc2+Wtk8OosWoekm/3oW+crg3s8Dok9kUBoU+uzFLjil mcuqhiHsr/sk/zzVmglBOh4JyubalLOxZeJlkDeIvx4ztLsm+cHbejlKYwt/PORXFdxL 6PmtsUJ0pyMBoLdqXBz6CwAa1METnKedpTKwjHrwh31mn+vn0lMh0LOBsLTEoR4e0gXl 85EQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=jd4F3nqBNttTqRKW4ZTNYIcSsFrWE4SISGXuITIvHWc=; b=WA3Q8tIF1TLL6cfw6x3WSFnmiuaHtlzcKHT/YmzLj43QW09F6/KnAZQ4agIFHOXrwu /8aGBZ8z4+AEgwRq66NssjIoLpJsDhdVp2AmZYi09UHNdlO6oiSfEUDTGfjR9Q1GGCKu IpHLOljtBZPEB0IrAlIUigJddOi5B84OjnkUB/AT4Xp20zM3BAFV2XAqG+FUdf4iGB5E Nxh5sNkpgWIvfbLlH80/+Ac/YSba1n6eHrQbRHnc84L8u6HsoLL6JDqtc4sICoQCuTMs GDLpT5k4/rOefSR4Vaewt0VqviJqJEnRWsS4QFPIsIfSPabMg7QWHZyNrRxIsuGykL2j 5UVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKWj6UCVU7EeYKQ4u5om2B7mdKsfjBdGrKpw9OO8/LXK8SvqSiEUqvv+TR1yaDvtMHd1BpjYgjMyR1fFw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id b16mr7385766ioa.6.1464240102683; Wed, 25 May 2016 22:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 22:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:21:42 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: Xiaohong Deng <>
To: Margaret Cullen <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144180e2fdb280533b7f70b"
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, "" <>, IETF Announcement 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: Thu, 26 May 2016 05:21:46 -0000

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Margaret Cullen <>

> I understand that this is a very difficult situation, but I think you have
> left something important out of your list of pros and cons.  If we cancel
> the Singapore meeting, we get to say _this_ to the Singapore government,
> who wants us to meet there enough that they have offered us $150K in
> incentives for us to come there:
> > “    Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men and
> >    preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create
> >    difficulties for same-sex partners and their children; these have
> >    discouraged affected members of our community from participating
> >    at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced
> >    others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them.
> >
> >
> >    Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the meeting
> >    in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.”
> If, instead, we hold this milestone meeting in Singapore despite the fact
> that these issues have been raised, we are sending the message that we
> consider basic human rights violations to be no more of a disincentive to
> visiting a particular venue than visa issues, cost considerations, or other
> items that have been raised in this discussion as examples of why “no venue
> is perfect”.

That's a fair point. So in case of cancellation, one more gain is Singapore
Government's taking on this say in addition to not compromising some of our
community members' right. The cost of getting to say this is still hotel
cancellation loss, potential incentive loss, potentially not having an Asia
meeting, plus extra human resources working on a new venue. In the end, the
community has to weigh cost vs. gain and make a very difficult decision.

> Margaret
> _______________________________________________
> Recentattendees mailing list