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

Vinayak Hegde <> Wed, 25 May 2016 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC56912D1AC for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:01:53 -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 9OcRR8fzq-7K for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CE0912D094 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v12so1469570obg.0 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:01:52 -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=eVAb5+CxHrCLOXQrQjSn1DfxSPnRlwjFuJEXzjRRWws=; b=ZYr93DIN9xObdvhuNOy+1gqoY+El2jgJ7MG6tH96KDwhUjQJb0iVuaTlCBLpeBI3sq V+1HlsL1JtrQmlVf9cQOEvwFZ7uZJxtqNH4Yk2n/Wqlw+xFrD4sWiDgb4BZ9BCiVvpyt RqF9HO6diwwr3WZUrnPBU18ga6PL79qgMJKEb5s/WSnDhnrmC+/5+v/0UC2wFNzKlceg Dr4gbvPum3f3c3rxWUBVY2KLOwOrvnH7atYoHC4lDqawtsR9RmwAvix1to1ZfFINzbZP F2qxhAMTdBSafYNLQvhVtiWAJDXfpq1KsKFYb93NsSs4G8hjgG0F+2PQGjrtxPMMBJSM 5rBg==
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=eVAb5+CxHrCLOXQrQjSn1DfxSPnRlwjFuJEXzjRRWws=; b=GPO43NV9l6JHN1OQdEbMi0UXYhVpmzazpx9MdGysnpXjyRo+Cwp46H5G5CITHMGP+N mim1blZ4EKS5wkDWWD6y5c7XXJBaTzQGdN2CX3MZHIUsU1gmdKINJdJRteB8Q24pVZ+T hqbxw685brA1Uro3kpv/xQN3PSY1HVAmG7+q39Bzsoy/r05Ug1MGqzZEDgNddUWHZV+I NelDx8qKTnud4u+feaVrRVcjbIP7S3RVLRT67fLtEgOsatwCa6Rh5FwYTBJl72WK1dua x7hxCaSTuCUVUMBDMh0ZU4trkqJZWNEadFs/YbhmwVezQZGhNNANZ2uiRmxCR3eXvSA9 7hew==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIqVO0ivuo4JJYH+nDHcMkSYm3dWPuWaVxX1qvoSaNh0hOfcwYHpkruaAIpnYugSr/7A2iRpBn2Urajzg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id l123mr2989504vkh.110.1464210111399; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 02:31:51 +0530
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
From: Vinayak Hegde <>
To: Melinda Shore <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 21:01:54 -0000

Couple more data points

1. The US is lagging EU and Latin America in acceptance of gay
marriage (socially and by law). Other countries have accepted gay
marriage much earlier.  See
for data.

There was never a discussion to exclude US from the list of acceptable
meeting venues AFAIK.

2. Politics and laws are lagging indicator of public opinion
generally. The following graph show the public acceptance of gay
marriage in the US over the years. Look at where the lines cross and
when laws are made. See link below for data

Now the question I ask of the community is this ? Is it prudent to
exclude a lot more people who would benefit from holding a meeting in
a place closer to them (in Asia) or would you want to punish those
very people by holding meetings elsewhere (thereby piling additional
travel costs on them). Is this a regressive move or a progressive one

The answer is not an easy one.

-- Vinayak

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Melinda Shore <> wrote:
> On 5/25/16 12:36 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> It's probably easier to enumerate who's excluded than who's included:
> No, it's still not really working.
> Would we, for example, be willing to meet in a place that
> criminalizes Muslims or Jews or Hindus?  I sincerely hope not,
> and I don't think that we would.
> I suppose it would provide some small personal assurance if the IETF,
> in fact, would meet in such a place and the issue here is not that
> people here are comfortable excluding GLBT people as a class.  (I'd
> skip that meeting, too, for whatever it's worth).
> Melinda