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

<> Thu, 26 May 2016 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70AFC12D69C for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cfi-fEoCAj48 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFF7912D73B for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1464279003; bh=n6HW06mCqWEqgZblWFPh3jGWyTkFFVIjfDc0YdAPplE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=Kk/25WLnjyV3nm94MriUdt56RC+T2J6pvlKHBqSB2kK4R3aIldhTI71YyeT9RVxkRSCNSbLsRnBg4fnq9UruotDcQue8Cr1lKNTU+h+liaMzOFjucYhy4/fTDla6lrai0voZAbPRm1iLPcWadT/SPdQkd1X0kCL/4nOppIqzgBk1Shl9QoSgApfaQlrwMNyOAMgoSrsyxV1VquoeYfmOl1+YyVq76BGhX8w4BxFt0Zcy/kYIT08t+cEtETuFSbDv/L7ZTbmaX9vTXN6J+bm/XXo83oOzltT8oE8iznoWUc/m689mp0JPWGZy4gKotJ3eWB8EpFFIVUu11PsmCIYzxQ==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 26 May 2016 16:10:03 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 26 May 2016 16:07:08 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 26 May 2016 16:07:08 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 26 May 2016 16:07:08 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-YMail-OSG: xZnA9oAVM1nP.qZoNaYA17KwM5OgqkO1FVokuqNCeeWtNGUzZ1MAGebxAr9BJD_ _3_35vcm3OmYPWDhjj9hrZmzZX5ZaYPqzSBIr08AoVBfewizSsRkbov22rODS8GP6Nr_rv21oZFb 3o.9TSyDHko7leLD6qvqOk08RE7nsKOgF4uOVnDuyaJ80VBrPKbQmnxoZ0LPB4_5NyUPk.2ILwfV enLdMtn3Mj6or4rjdjkq1VRI1SwFSoseKxk88yyiWHzGVrt6sBFRrooqKWO1e0q5AjUGQlccSjCl 6nzBQQ7nRjT66sC3UDiQoD3_pmcUAsDtqVYIJ2Oa90vjdZ_C5abQhzKT.GpFI2mub6VZmeKE22UN F0R4zutqMMzTGYhhj_DEHRWdrkEvZy2t3wKBeGUJGZ5_sf8q_alIuFtHK2rGFQpYElavzkvFoaKC r_6v9eu1o7gn5YZYoNI8t4Vf9UOcmVl7ezV1sWBa1mqyFvAYrwQAHEEw5oDTy4qAJZr.PGCceFw0 OdS3Uk2FMocN4.dwij6WrccqWq4SstI8JXhRG7qhrrygU4YQzPJRt48AwuiOS.B9rW1Q-
Received: from by; Thu, 26 May 2016 16:07:08 +0000; 1464278828.258
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:07:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: <>
To: Ole Jacobsen <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605260754450.6799@rabdullah.local>
References: <> <027501d1b724$632c2c40$> <> <> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605260754450.6799@rabdullah.local>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Leslie Daigle <>, " Discussion" <>
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 16:10:07 -0000


>(see also answer from Harish)

Very good answer from Harish.

>The questions you list are almost identical to ones that were compiled 
>based on early discussions on this list and which have been presented 
>to various parties in Singapore and to folks in same-sex relationships 
>who travel there frequently. The answers to all questions were, as you 
>might expect, "no issues." 

I am very glad that this was done.

>These answers has been countered as 
>"unhelpful" by some because they do not offer an iron-clad guarantee,
>and of course the law in question still is on the books and therefore 
>there is a perceived risk and uncertainty about its application.

Whenever you travel, there is the potential of risk.   Life itself does not come with iron-clad guarantees.

I think now there needs to be some policy based on reasonableness.  This needs to be a part of the venue discussion.  Everyone has to decide for themselves what level of risk they are willing to assume.  I suspect for some people they will tolerate no risk.  For most people, a risk of less than 1% or 5% ( or .00001% which is what I suspect it is for Singapore) is probably good.

Note, that we pass drafts based on ROUGH consensus not ACTUAL consensus.  As in any situation, 100% agreement or consensus is almost impossible to achieve.

I would say 100% guarantees of safety are also nearly impossible to achieve.  If you want to stay completely safe, then stay at home.  But, actually, in California, there could be an earthquake at any time, so even that is not safe. 

The particular case of Singapore, I would say, is that it is an extremely polite and law-abiding society.   Far more so than the U.S, in many ways.  The problems you will have are if you chew gum and discard it recklessly or throw litter.

Do we ask for 100% guarantees of safety in any other venue?  This is why this all seems quite unpleasant to those of us who live in Asia or are of Asian origin.

>Speaking only for myself, I believe we can have a successful meeting 
>in Singapore and that none of the concerns raised will be experienced 
>by any participant or family for this meeting.

I am looking forward to it.  I recommend the Chili Crayfish and of course, Isetan Singapore.  Much lovely shopping to be done on Orchard Road.  I may be there rather than at WG meetings (just kidding, of course.)

>Let me just add that Singapore is one of the top destinations in the
>world for conferences and major events of all kinds (F-1 racing being
>perhaps the most famous) as well as a major medical destination for
>all of Asia. Many large corporations and organizations have offices
>in Singapore. I personally do not believe that these organizations
>and events would continue to support Singapore (financially) if there
>were frequent reports of harassment and discrimination for visitors.

>This is not to say that life for the LGBT community in Singapore is
>without problems or that the laws shouldn't be changed. But I agree
>with you that moving the meeting would not be in the best interest
>of the IETF.

Thank you.