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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC8D12D555 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 14:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z6A5j6DOjDAv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 14:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x230.google.com (mail-lb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5C9A12D54F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 14:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-x230.google.com with SMTP id k7so9516914lbm.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 14:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7GEAi6DmNesdS+zsoVDGpH679nOwhZgZCywnsO6sMQA=; b=zKvp0txx0Mb2BjDSTnCeWQOGgXEXYMxMLEjjyjaV4iNhdpmbpezG4kecIdb5moLtw8 fl2mUuSw6dWMEW7NCguaNXH2HGVRRqqKp6GpRfe5itGKc6EglvXKxyWlIq72oqKkNvBU ed65aRZWEbAfRsmtL0NNH2d6V9WzzkD49t7kd8Bo18ntzEGAeSLewpLTFR53yUQ+JgAy Lp79UPsoS+mNB61RSngxfFGXKgAD/ICcSm2YObqEw7CGfvwvMs0KbpkXfefaD9ah6VvI TE4sursSHNL9XN8s7vs1PYuC73OPg/uHPdQpo9YFIpGW+Rie1M0zRvorlkqtw1fBHQ4d x4iA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7GEAi6DmNesdS+zsoVDGpH679nOwhZgZCywnsO6sMQA=; b=HhSKd3FD6kHS+krkDPCehVVRiNLn0gfwiSyeh1ZiuaxwpoDXshbKJUIm4d53cvyHIX 1/Gtd9UwpX8fNfsS0fZwBC+UwJWrxVfJKR/PM0q0Tc2a1Cc89vTUvPWKrsRrpqTfypkN rWdVsMH7QGIz1MVOBumxmRWQFHcAiznTOKgpNTf6/WWQiHoYNfZO8oEaVRePpmqmfaqu UAvRx2e9UYa6GlR5PoZ/SOyEFYtcKcLUASThskwAmILkKqINIrZpy9eUfximtxWnZ8wH HQTkGwG/9RZRgboxqCl9Mwkqo1b8j6S6ChNT/7EB+svjQvN1aH3B/cD13ye9BJeq1Wxw 7rbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIyaibrXdVpE90aQRa5wn73EqI6kk1JxMcXMHJCdJ4hnTzRfg3VtwT15+Tfvo2omjcHthxzoFglmgm/eQ==
X-Received: by 10.112.77.2 with SMTP id o2mr58925lbw.83.1464124042076; Tue, 24 May 2016 14:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.153.135 with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2016 14:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <245957df-1963-6852-89f0-ed98fb056e44@gmail.com>
References: <D3662363.190A96%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <1CA535AB-CAC4-49CB-B094-AAA7FE3119FB@consulintel.es> <2b01eb8f-d319-7d20-0f84-9a774f9e0e44@nostrum.com> <C01AE269-3168-4B6A-B8D8-D97230288302@gmail.com> <8161273d-97c2-2757-5f0c-6146d0b297aa@nostrum.com> <E51DA1A2-AB3E-42F7-BC0A-308BE6B58580@gmail.com> <2270ea7c-cd6d-c3d5-e768-6d1f0ae15605@nostrum.com> <216D2B11-5E07-4DBE-BCC4-0A8ABCCB15B7@gmail.com> <cf9ad015-ef7d-6e11-44e8-6a0fb5a78b91@gmail.com> <EBBFC64A-C730-47D8-8F66-E4C7773A0344@gmail.com> <D5E06CF1-9C2D-41BE-8635-1F73321986EC@consulintel.es> <CAG4d1rfvYrW5TDCzdUoFeeQFnsDejWFn7jH+20xnJ4QHEsJ=2g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kG2_P5yBEOrajkNXZms438xRZuQTTcPnWnGDoqkYZCUQ@mail.gmail.com> <66d2fad7-ccc6-b63f-fb56-27b1c4f87174@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kp=1neExB+kXjqivmuC1d4Y13Ve8VtjnMnu=-G8F2o8g@mail.gmail.com> <bb91eea8-aaa4-164a-df29-ccb86d90ebcc@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mCcBU+9nwHXYJvj-L1=tYsOtdH5Tc_fdB6qhTB8RqRjA@mail.gmail.com> <245957df-1963-6852-89f0-ed98fb056e44@gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:06:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1nfOwvD_dCujviNwWoGVGLhttWE7Qt2QCvxu8pM6GjmNg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3a6f46f780905339cf109
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/K0hjPkDCECEr5O3ohUwiFjYL4KI>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 21:07:27 -0000

Hm, okay, perhaps people were being delicate.   The ruling to which you are
referring is not about same-sex relationships.   It is about same-sex
relations in a semi-public place.  I agree that this is a valid argument
against going to Singapore, and certainly against Singapore being eligible
for consideration for future IETFs.

In Singapore's defense, police shootings are much rarer there than in the
U.S.   I do not know what the relative risks are, though.

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/24/16 12:31 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> It is only in the past three years that the IAOC has even really had a
>> meaningful choice about whether to go to a country that recognized LGBT
>> marital rights.
>>
>
> The problem with Singapore is not that marital/parental rights
> are not recognized.  The problem is that Singapore has multiple
> laws that criminalize same-sex relationships between men and
> that their Supreme Court upheld those laws less than two years
> ago.  This is, to my knowledge, unique among countries where
> the IETF has met.  If the situation in Singapore is, in fact,
> hunky-dory, they have the option of making that clear by
> getting rid of those laws.
>
> Nobody has been able to provide any concrete assurances
> that a meeting participant's familial and parental rights would be
> protected while visiting Singapore, Barry Greene's giggles
> notwithstanding.  The risks are unknown and the consequences are
> potentially quite serious.
>
> Melinda
>
>